• Poll: More Democrats Now Favor Socialism Than Capitalism
    250 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;48991009]that's all well and good, but why exactly do you support the income inequality being as, well, inequal as it is? why do you support the top echelon individuals of society earning wages equal to that of a small country, while the bottom echelon lives in abject poverty? why do you think it's just fine that people like donald trump consider 6.7 million dollars "measly"? you don't support an egalitarian society, you support a capitalist society with minimal concessions just as long as it quiets down the working class [editline]26th October 2015[/editline] i'm sorry, that's actually [I]6.8[/I] million dollars that trump considers "small"[/QUOTE] since when did i support those things
then i guess you're a socialist sobotnik babe
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48990948]The state existed before the market economy, and has risen in multiple locations throughout the ancient world. I'm not too sure how exactly the state is set up to ensure the rule of this nonexistant "capitalist class" when states predate the development of markets, money, private enterprise, etc by thousands of years. There's also the questionable issue that if these so called "capitalists" created states so as to set up inequalities in their favour, then how the hell did they get any support or the power to exert their will? And not just once, but a minimum of six times (in Africa, North America, South America, Europe, and Asia where there are states which developed in isolation from one another).[/QUOTE] Yes, states have existed for a long time, and here's a bit better explanation of the Marxist idea that I'd like to see your argument against. The state itself is seen to arises as a tool for the oppression of one class by another. This is the basic source of the state, and it certainly has existed before capitalism. Let us go to Engels and his "Origins of the Family" to see the Marxist view on this: [QUOTE=Engels]As the state arose from the need to keep class antagonisms in check, but also arose in the thick of the fight between the classes, it is normally the state of the most powerful, economically ruling class, which by its means becomes also the political ruling class, and so acquires new means of holding down and exploiting the oppressed class.[/QUOTE] And again to Engels: [QUOTE=Engels]The central link in civilised society is the state, which in all typical periods is without exception the state of the ruling class, and in all cases continues to be essentially a machine for holding down the oppressed, exploited class...[/QUOTE] We could also perhaps consider the idea of base and super-structure, as shown in Marx's preface to "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy": [QUOTE=Marx]At a certain stage of their development, the material forces of production in society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or - what is but a legal expression for the same thing - with the property relations within which they have been at work before. From forms of development of the forces of production, these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation, the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed.[/QUOTE] One could certainly take this into consideration when attempting to understand the spread of the bourgeois state if you also combine it with a general understanding of imperialism as a whole. We could perhaps look again to both Marx and Engels, in the "Communist Manifesto", to just give a little context to that idea of how capitalism, and therefore the capitalist state, spread: [QUOTE=Marx]The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production…[/QUOTE] I hope, assuming that it is coherent enough, this gives you an idea of what I'd like to see you make a compelling argument against, in addition to an argument against the general idea that the state is harmful and unnecessary.
[QUOTE=Octavius;48991421]The state itself is seen to arises as a tool for the oppression of one class by another. This is the basic source of the state[/quote] This is weak. If states and classes are oppressive, why do people allow something intrinsically bad to come into existence? Engels theory on the development of the state is vague and lacks the developments of the past century and a half in anthropology. [quote]I hope, assuming that it is coherent enough, this gives you an idea of what I'd like to see you make a compelling argument against, in addition to an argument against the general idea that the state is harmful and unnecessary.[/QUOTE] It's weak shit. As a tool for describing state formation it is extremely eurocentric and weak on the actual formation of states and its associated institutions. It's tempting to argue that since oppression, exploitation, and greed are the characteristics of complex societies, that therefore it follows they were necessary for its creation. How is it that these classes actually appear in the first place? What causes tribal hunter-gatherers to suddenly develop classes? Like you have a tiny group of people who somehow end up with a bunch of desires that requires oppressing their fellows. Who are these people? How did they come to possess these desires? [QUOTE=Lord of Ears;48991155]then i guess you're a socialist sobotnik babe[/QUOTE] well i dont think workers should control the factors of production so probably not
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48991491]This is weak. If states and classes are oppressive, why do people allow something intrinsically bad to come into existence? Engels theory on the development of the state is vague and lacks the developments of the past century and a half in anthropology. It's weak shit. As a tool for describing state formation it is extremely eurocentric and weak on the actual formation of states and its associated institutions. It's tempting to argue that since oppression, exploitation, and greed are the characteristics of complex societies, that therefore it follows they were necessary for its creation. How is it that these classes actually appear in the first place? What causes tribal hunter-gatherers to suddenly develop classes? Like you have a tiny group of people who somehow end up with a bunch of desires that requires oppressing their fellows. Who are these people? How did they come to possess these desires?[/QUOTE] People allow a lot of intrinsically bad things to come into existence in general. The exaggeration on the age of Engels's theory is also really unnecessary. It was the 1884 when he wrote this based on the work of Lewis Morgan, not back 1840 based on whatever they had then. I would be interested to see your modern anthropological findings which counter the relevant claims of Marx and Engels though, considering there are a number of people within the field that support Marxism in general, along with others on the radical left. Also, feel free to elaborate on how you see Marx's idea of development as eurocentric along with how you would link the characteristics of humans seen in our modern society to our natural characteristics. As to how classes would appear, the general Marxist answer would be rooted in the Neolithic Revolution. With this change, we established permanent settlements and stored our surplus. Due to this surplus we were able to dedicate our time to things other than survival and further progress and develop. Eventually, as we progressed and things became more complex there was a need for administration. Eventually these privileged administrative and specialist groups became a ruling elite, thus forming a new class which took power in society. And there you have it, classes and the state were developed. This is not due to some intentional or sudden process, but instead the slow emergence of a privileged group which solidified it's position. So to answer in a more direct way: Specialization and need for administration that emerged after the Neolithic Revolution. It was not some sudden development. A privileged group emerged and sought to solidify this position of privileged. These people would be the specialists and administrators. This is a pretty condensed and simplified explanation of the idea, but it should serve at least as a solid base for you to create an understanding of the idea. I really am interested in hearing a well thought out critique of this idea if you can offer it.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48991491]well i dont think workers should control the factors of production so probably not[/QUOTE] well obviously you're in favor of massive income inequality then
[QUOTE=Octavius;48991638]I would be interested to see your modern anthropological findings which counter the relevant claims of Marx and Engels though, considering there are a number of people within the field that support Marxism in general, along with others on the radical left.[/quote] Marxism hasn't been relevant in the field for like 50 years. [url]https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YdW5wSPJXIoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=collapse+of+complex+societies&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAGoVChMIuYvFj4ziyAIVQkQaCh3Rsgco#v=onepage&q=collapse%20of%20complex%20societies&f=false[/url] Page 37 [quote]In integration theory, the differential benefits accruing to those who fulfill societywide administrative roles are seen as compensation for performing the socially most important functions (Davis 1949: 366-8). The costs of stratification are a necessary evil which must be borne to realize its integrative benefits. In basing the development of complexity on real, observable, physical needs (defense, public works, resource sharing, etc .) integration theory avoids the psychological reductionism that cripples Marxism. Human tendencies toward self-aggrandizement are seen as controlled in a sociopolitical matrix, so that they are expressed in situations of benefit, and suppressed elsewhere. Expression of ambition is a dependent social variable, rather than an independent psychological constant.[/quote] [quote]Also, feel free to elaborate on how you see Marx's idea of development as eurocentric[/quote] Mainly because his historical theory of slavery>feudalism>capital>communism is extremely oversimplified and largely only applies to Central Europe. It's weak at describing non-european societies, ignores the fact that there are multiple instances of capitalism devolving into feudalism, the nonexistence of slavery state in multiple societies, not to mention the appearance of capitalism in non-european societies multiple times. [quote]With this change, we established permanent settlements and stored our surplus. Due to this surplus we were able to dedicate our time to things other than survival and further progress and develop. Eventually, as we progressed and things became more complex there was a need for administration. Eventually these privileged administrative and specialist groups became a ruling elite, thus forming a new class which took power in society.[/quote] The "need for administration" is key, as by this it completely validates the my position that states formed to resolve problems of managing limited resources, organize public projects, etc rather than for oppression/exploitation. [editline]27th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Lord of Ears;48991658]well obviously you're in favor of massive income inequality then[/QUOTE] how did you come to this conclusion? it's possible to not have workers controlling the factors of production while also reducing income inequality
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48991737]how did you come to this conclusion? it's possible to not have workers controlling the factors of production while also reducing income inequality[/QUOTE] because having a private few in exclusive ownership of the means of production leads to that few profiting massively at the expense of the working class
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;48991770]because having a private few in exclusive ownership of the means of production leads to that few profiting massively at the expense of the working class[/QUOTE] source? when did this happen? what do you mean few? don't you mean "factors of production" rather than "means"? working class? who?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48991793]source? when did this happen? what do you mean few? don't you mean "factors of production" rather than "means"? working class? who?[/QUOTE] Well the top 20% of people in the US have gotten relatively richer since 2008 at the expense of the middle class (and those with less money, property or qualifications than the middle class). In most cases the means of production are owned by those top 20% (or those top 20% have significant influence over or profit from those not in the top 20% who own their own means of production. ) The money they have can be used to buy influence in governments or easily out compete smaller businesses reducing competition giving them a higher share of the market. You might argue the working class no longer exists (hence my reluctance to specifically mention it before) but not everyone is "the middle class". Marx's classes might not longer exist, the class struggle might no longer be working class vs bourgeoisie but there is still validity in the 99% (80% in my mind but well use 99% since its the popular number) vs the 1%. Distributing wealth from the top 1% (they could still easily have more money than the other classes) would benefit the middle class, the only arguements against it would be: "waa but they earned it" "but then they'll go and take their jobs elsewhere" or the classic american: "huh you sum sorda commie" or bill gates style: "what like north korea" (what a twat) The only valid one is the fear of them taking their jobs elsewhere. Thats getting a little off of the socialist ideology and more to social democracy... (i plan to continue posting from where i left off yesterday but not sure where to start)
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48991737]The "need for administration" is key, as by this it completely validates the my position that states formed to resolve problems of managing limited resources, organize public projects, etc rather than for oppression/exploitation. [/QUOTE] You'd be wrong. Scarcity existed since forever, but states only started existing in 17th century's Europe. It seems that this entire discussion is based on a fundamental misunderstanding on what a state is: there was no concept of "public projects" and "managing limited resources" in the ruling elite until well into the 19th century. It looks like you're basically projecting modern sensibilities and concepts into the Stone Age. A state is much, much more than simply an entity exerting a form of control over a territory. There must be legitimacy, absolute monopoly of internal force, a Government (with the capital G, as we're talking about concepts), a clearly defined territory, a clearly defined population, the idea that the state is [I]superiorem non recognoscens[/I], meaning that every state is equal in the international community and the fact that the state must be home to one or more nations, an homogenous ethnic unity. All these factors started to coalesce in Europe, well in the 17th century (the most common date is 1648, with the Peace of Westphalia, which is considered the starting point of the modern international community), and then the idea was exported elsewhere. It's not eurocentric, it's an historical fact. The Celestial Empire was not a state, the Roman Empire was not a state, the HRE was not a state, medieval England was not a state, Babylonia was not a state.
Yes they were. Not quite in the sense we know today, but they were a 'state'. Your claim is completely ridiculous. [editline]27th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE]In Europe, during the 18th century, the classic non-national states were the multiethnic empires, the Austrian Empire, Kingdom of France, Kingdom of Hungary,[18] the Russian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire and smaller states at what would now be called sub-national level. The multi-ethnic empire was a monarchy ruled by a king, emperor or sultan. The population belonged to many ethnic groups, and they spoke many languages. The empire was dominated by one ethnic group, and their language was usually the language of public administration. The ruling dynasty was usually, but not always, from that group. This type of state is not specifically European: such empires existed on all continents, except Australia and Antarctica. Some of the smaller European states were not so ethnically diverse, but were also dynastic states, ruled by a royal house. Their territory could expand by royal intermarriage or merge with another state when the dynasty merged. In some parts of Europe, notably Germany, very small territorial units existed. They were recognised by their neighbours as independent, and had their own government and laws. Some were ruled by princes or other hereditary rulers, some were governed by bishops or abbots. Because they were so small, however, they had no separate language or culture: the inhabitants shared the language of the surrounding region. In some cases these states were simply overthrown by nationalist uprisings in the 19th century. Liberal ideas of free trade played a role in German unification, which was preceded by a customs union, the Zollverein. However, the Austro-Prussian War, and the German alliances in the Franco-Prussian War, were decisive in the unification. The Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire broke up after the First World War and the Russian Empire became the Soviet Union, after the Russian Civil War. A few of the smaller states survived: the independent principalities of Liechtenstein, Andorra, Monaco, and the republic of San Marino. (Vatican City is different. Although there was a larger Papal State, it was created in its present form by the 1929 Lateran treaties between Italy and the Roman Catholic Church.)[/QUOTE] Wikipedia page on the 'nation state'. It isn't the same state we know today, but it is still a state nonetheless.
[QUOTE='[IT] Zodiac;48992228']Roman Empire was not a state[/QUOTE] are you sure like are you really sure? what else was it? a potato? [quote]There must be legitimacy, absolute monopoly of internal force, a Government (with the capital G, as we're talking about concepts), a clearly defined territory, a clearly defined population[/quote] literally all of these things were present in the examples you just gave (minus the HRE)
[QUOTE='[IT] Zodiac;48992228']You'd be wrong. Scarcity existed since forever, but states only started existing in 17th century's Europe. It seems that this entire discussion is based on a fundamental misunderstanding on what a state is: there was no concept of "public projects" and "managing limited resources" in the ruling elite until well into the 19th century. It looks like you're basically projecting modern sensibilities and concepts into the Stone Age. A state is much, much more than simply an entity exerting a form of control over a territory. There must be legitimacy, absolute monopoly of internal force, a Government (with the capital G, as we're talking about concepts), a clearly defined territory, a clearly defined population, the idea that the state is [I]superiorem non recognoscens[/I], meaning that every state is equal in the international community and the fact that the state must be home to one or more nations, an homogenous ethnic unity. All these factors started to coalesce in Europe, well in the 17th century (the most common date is 1648, with the Peace of Westphalia, which is considered the starting point of the modern international community), and then the idea was exported elsewhere. It's not eurocentric, it's an historical fact. The Celestial Empire was not a state, the Roman Empire was not a state, the HRE was not a state, medieval England was not a state, Babylonia was not a state.[/QUOTE] No that is the nation states. States have been around for ages, arguably since the agricultural revolution. Mesopotamia city states had taxes and "kings". Greek city states had coinage.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48991793]don't you mean "factors of production" rather than "means"?[/QUOTE] i'll go ahead and answer the only question you posted that's worth answering and isn't pissing bait [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production"]means of production[/URL] is a more correct term than "factors of production", wherever the fuck you got that
Regarding the discussion on anarchy above. Those states failed because a centralised state with an army is going to be more powerful militarily. Facist spain with its well trained well supplied army centralised and strictly enforced rule is going to crush a few anarchist rebels. Does that make facism "better" then anarchy? Only militarily I'd argue. Realistically the ideology which lends itself to a strong military ie military industrial complex or coinage mercenary complex (early rome or greek city state) or the ideology which serves to make the powerful and influential more powerful and influential (capitalism see russia as an example where the already influential and powerful used capitalism to become oligarchs or modern USA where power and wealth are becoming more and more consolidated in the hands of the few) are going to be the most successful ideologies; even if they are not the best for the people living under them. From above the powerful use their power to propagate their favoured ideology and use their influence to enforce it. French Empire used markets and capitalism to turn Mauritius from a agrarian, self sustaining and relatively free island into a colony growing sugar to buy junk and taking out loans to afford to eat, then used taxes to force people into growing sugar. Maritius had no option but to become capitalist because it was forced upon them by the already capitalist and much more powerful french. Mauritius didn't benefit and its people certainly didn't benefit much from capitalism till recently, even now they're burdened by debt, poverty and generally shit conditions, would they have been better with some other system? Very possibly. France and capitalism in general gave them no option but to become an island of bonded labour and debt slavery.
Economic theory calls it the 'factors of production' (Land, labour, capital (think machinery), entrepreneurship).
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;48991770]because having a private few in exclusive ownership of the means of production leads to that few profiting massively at the expense of the working class[/QUOTE] I wouldn't trust 95% of all people with controlling the factors of production in a million years.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;48992393]Regarding the discussion on anarchy above. Those states failed because a centralised state with an army is going to be more powerful militarily. Facist spain with its well trained well supplied army centralised and strictly enforced rule is going to crush a few anarchist rebels. Does that make facism "better" then anarchy? Only militarily I'd argue. Realistically the ideology which lends itself to a strong military ie military industrial complex or coinage mercenary complex (early rome or greek city state) or the ideology which serves to make the powerful and influential more powerful and influential (capitalism see russia as an example where the already influential and powerful used capitalism to become oligarchs or modern USA where power and wealth are becoming more and more consolidated in the hands of the few) are going to be the most successful ideologies; even if they are not the best for the people living under them. From above the powerful use their power to propagate their favoured ideology and use their influence to enforce it. French Empire used markets and capitalism to turn Mauritius from a agrarian, self sustaining and relatively free island into a colony growing sugar to buy junk and taking out loans to afford to eat, then used taxes to force people into growing sugar. Maritius had no option but to become capitalist because it was forced upon them by the already capitalist and much more powerful french. Mauritius didn't benefit and its people certainly didn't benefit much from capitalism till recently, even now they're burdened by debt, poverty and generally shit conditions, would they have been better with some other system? Very possibly. France and capitalism in general gave them no option but to become an island of bonded labour and debt slavery.[/QUOTE] If a state cannot defend itself militarily and protect its citizenry from invasion, then it isn't worth anything at all.
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;48992371]i'll go ahead and answer the only question you posted that's worth answering and isn't pissing bait [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production"]means of production[/URL] is a more correct term than "factors of production", wherever the fuck you got that[/QUOTE] factors of production is the term that economists use these days when talking about real economics instead of marxist economics they're talking about the inputs required in the process of making something (land, labour, capital, etc) when the real economists are talking they use "factors of production" rather than "means of production" when it comes to describing how the real world economy works
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48992405]I wouldn't trust 95% of all people with controlling the factors of production in a million years.[/QUOTE] and what makes that 5% that profit obscenely so much better qualified, in your opinion? [editline]27th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;48992411]factors of production is the term that economists use these days when talking about real economics instead of marxist economics they're talking about the inputs required in the process of making something (land, labour, capital, etc) when the real economists are talking they use "factors of production" rather than "means of production" when it comes to describing how the real world economy works[/QUOTE] oh yeah, real economists like you?
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;48992413]and what makes that 5% that profit obscenely so much better qualified, in your opinion? [editline]27th October 2015[/editline] oh yeah, real economists like you?[/QUOTE] You're wrong (and he's wrong for calling Marxist economists not real economists), but overall he is correct on the terminology, and you are wrong. Open any economics textbook and you will find this backed up.
this is semantics and i won't continue this line of discussion
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;48992413]oh yeah, real economists like you?[/QUOTE] i've read books on economics and i've had to study it in an academic setting while i don't claim to be master of economics, marxist economics is quietly regarded as "heterodox" (a polite word for psuedoscience) in the profession these days. like if you read an economics textbook it's full of maths and other complex shit, and it doesn't substantiate a lot of what you're trying to argue
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;48992413]and what makes that 5% that profit obscenely so much better qualified, in your opinion?[/QUOTE] The fact that they have the skill and knowledge necessary to manage such things in the first place, which 95% of people, in my experience, don't. Inequality is a problem, but the solution isn't handing over control to the lower classes.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48992428]marxist economics is quietly regarded as "heterodox" (a polite word for psuedoscience) in the profession these days.[/QUOTE] yeah, the profession that you're not a part of just because you've "read books on economics" doesn't mean you're a fucking financial advisor, so i'm gonna need you to go ahead and post some citation that shows why exactly marxian* economics are so outmoded, because they seem plenty relevant today
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;48992451]yeah, the profession that you're not a part of just because you've "read books on economics" doesn't mean you're a fucking financial advisor, so i'm gonna need you to go ahead and post some citation that shows why exactly marxian* economics are so outmoded, because they seem plenty relevant today[/QUOTE] An economist and a financial advisor are two very different things. They sometimes overlap but by and large their jobs are very different.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48992442]The fact that they have the skill and knowledge necessary to manage such things in the first place, which 95% of people, in my experience, don't. Inequality is a problem, but the solution isn't handing over control to the lower classes.[/QUOTE] protip: the people in control of the means/factors/anuses of production aren't the ones that are working hands-on, nor are they the ones that manage the logistics do you think donald trump has ever tilled a field [editline]27th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Headhumpy;48992457]An economist and a financial advisor are two very different things. They sometimes overlap but by and large their jobs are very different.[/QUOTE] and as much as he'd like everyone to think he is, sobotnik is neither of the above (i used the term 'financial advisor' because i won't ever consider 'economist' an actual job)
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;48992451]yeah, the profession that you're not a part of just because you've "read books on economics" doesn't mean you're a fucking financial advisor, so i'm gonna need you to go ahead and post some citation that shows why exactly marxian* economics are so outmoded, because they seem plenty relevant today[/QUOTE] To be honest, from your confusion about 'factors of production', I think Sobotnik is better placed to comment than you.
Meant to address this yesterday but had to go out. Regarding markets and capitalism. Markets have been around since trade, it is possible without capitalism (Confucianist china abhorred the idea of profiting from others yet had well developed markets, taking that profit thing slightly further buddhism was a big issue in axial age china because it sought to amass and concentrate wealth and build up huge estates, the chinese state would frequently crack down on these temples and free the bonded labourers the temples used). Likewise with division of labour, to some degree it has been around since even before the agricultural revolution, it makes common sense. Ancient settlements (way before capitalism or even industrialism) would have needed to specialise with 1 guy making shoes and another hunting. Pit house excavations in the UK have evidence of this. The industrial revolution called for a greater degree of specialisation but I would say that is because of industrialisation, not because of capitalism; I would also argue industrialisation would be possible without capitalism, it might have taken longer or might have been brought about by competing state bureaus or by some other collective of people. It is fallacious to say these are natural and then go on to say therefore capitalism is natural. The only natural part of capitalism is the way it is sold by the rich and powerful to the less rich and less powerful as some means of fairness. The rich will always try to get richer at the expense of others, the means by which they do it just become slightly more palatable. "Im your not so friendly local thug, gimme some gold" "I am your chief gimme gold to protect you" "You owe a debt to your mother and father, you will never repay this debt. Instead make amends with god by giving to the temple every week" "Out of the goodness of my heart I give you a shack and fields to work? what more do you ask for? know your place villain" "I'm giving you a job in a factory, you should be thankful there are a 100 like you who I could hire instead. Oh yeah here is enough for a loaf of bread tonight, dont spend it all in 1 place" "I'm not trying got get rich, im trying to save lives, the vast sums of money im making are just a happy coincidence" "sure I could use profit to provide better and cheaper services but it is more moral obligation to serve the interests of my share holders, I'd be evil if I DIDN'T exploit labour and bring out a new obselete product every year"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.