Poll: More Democrats Now Favor Socialism Than Capitalism
250 replies, posted
[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]
i'm pretty sure that reading "marxist economics for children" wouldn't make one an authority on marxist ideology either, but we'll move on from that.
the reason they're outmoded is because literally no mainstream scholar seriously takes the idea of marxist economics anymore. everybody is in that neoclassical synthesis thing now
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_synthesis[/url]
[quote]Mainstream economics is largely dominated by the resulting synthesis, being largely Keynesian in macroeconomics and neoclassical in microeconomics.[/quote]
as for marxist "economics"
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_economics#Relevance_to_economics[/url]
[quote]Marx was an important and influential thinker, and Marxism has been a doctrine with intellectual and practical influence. The fact is, however, that most serious English-speaking economists regard Marxist economics as an irrelevant dead end.[25]
"Economists working in the Marxian-Sraffian tradition represent a small minority of modern economists, and that their writings have virtually no impact upon the professional work of most economists in major English-language universities", according to George Stigler.[26][/quote]
i mean a lot of the stuff that marx put forward was challenged extensively and the field moved on. the labour-theory of value for instance has been dead for donkeys years and isn't treated seriously at all
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48992476]To be honest, from your confusion about 'factors of production', I think Sobotnik is better placed to comment than you.[/QUOTE]
my confusion? my fucking confusion? if you wanna sit here and fucking argue semantics over two equally valid terms just because the autist on your side is using one term then that's fine, i'll leave you neo-con lads here to jack each other off over your shared dream of a totally laissez-faire economy, i can see you didn't want any discourse in the first place
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;48992502]my confusion? my fucking confusion? if you wanna sit here and fucking argue semantics over two equally valid terms just because the autist on your side is using one term then that's fine, i'll leave you neo-con lads here to jack each other off over your shared dream of a totally laissez-faire economy, i can see you didn't want any discourse in the first place[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]means of production is a more correct term than "factors of production", wherever the fuck you got that[/QUOTE]
changed your tune a bit?
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48992408]If a state cannot defend itself militarily and protect its citizenry from invasion, then it isn't worth anything at all.[/QUOTE]
They fought and tried to protect themselves. the classical age empires were effective because they paid their soldiers in land gold, to get that land or gold they had to use their soldiers to expand and pillage/capture new territory. At the time that was a super efficient tactic. Does that mean it was the best ideology at the time? I would say no. The people who were conquered, the vast numbers of slaves, the people whos land and houses and gold were taken from them would also argue otherwise.
The british empire was super effective at military stuff. Does that mean it was the best for the people under it? The millions of indians who were starved would argue otherwise. The Americans loved it so much they decided their odds were better of being lead by a buncha rich dudes and slave owners.
Modern capitalism lends itself well to invading places. American only really recovered properly from the great depression during ww2. The coldwar gave the US a big boost in economy also. Arms companies, construction companies, law firms, insurance, R&D all benefit from war, so lots of funding and support go into the military. So capitalism helps make a super strong military and gives incentives to use it. Is this the best for the people in the military? nope. Is this the best for the average citizen who pays taxes for a 20k bomb to drop on a house in the middle of a desert? Nope. Is this the best for the average citizien who lives in the house next to the bombed house? Nope. Is this the best for those with the power, influence and money to benefit from the bomb being dropped and the war beign waged, yep.
The most warlike ideology, in most cases, doesn't benefit the majority of people. People were happy in those anarchistic communes, less so when the fascists marched in and shot them against walls. Would you, in this case say facism is better than anarcho communism? (also the facists, who already controlled most of the army, got lots of support from hitler, the republican communists (not the anarchists) got some support from the soviets, the brits and french were too facist friendly/too pussy to help out so it wasn't exactly a fair fight)
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;48992502]my confusion? my fucking confusion? if you wanna sit here and fucking argue semantics over two equally valid terms just because the autist on your side is using one term then that's fine, i'll leave you neo-con lads here to jack each other off over your shared dream of a totally laissez-faire economy, i can see you didn't want any discourse in the first place[/QUOTE]
you literally said that you didn't know where i got the term "factors of production" and then claimed "means of production" was more accurate before stating they're both equally valid
like one of the reasons the discourse is going badly is because you don't even recognize basic economics terms which you can see in the glossary of any entry-level economics textbook. you don't know the difference between an economist and a financial adviser (or even seem to care).
if you can't recognize fundamental concepts of modern economics you're in a poor position to claim that marxian economics is somehow relevant to a debate you barely understand
"laissez-faire" economy is also discredited and has been for years too, i don't know where you got the idea i supported it
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48992513]changed your tune a bit?[/QUOTE]
Sobotnik discarded the guys entire argument over 1 equally valid/widely used word. I think he has a reason to be unhappy.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;48992533]They fought and tried to protect themselves. the classical age empires were effective because they paid their soldiers in land gold, to get that land or gold they had to use their soldiers to expand and pillage/capture new territory. At the time that was a super efficient tactic. Does that mean it was the best ideology at the time? I would say no. The people who were conquered, the vast numbers of slaves, the people whos land and houses and gold were taken from them would also argue otherwise.
The british empire was super effective at military stuff. Does that mean it was the best for the people under it? The millions of indians who were starved would argue otherwise. The Americans loved it so much they decided their odds were better of being lead by a buncha rich dudes and slave owners.
Modern capitalism lends itself well to invading places. American only really recovered properly from the great depression during ww2. The coldwar gave the US a big boost in economy also. Arms companies, construction companies, law firms, insurance, R&D all benefit from war, so lots of funding and support go into the military. So capitalism helps make a super strong military and gives incentives to use it. Is this the best for the people in the military? nope. Is this the best for the average citizen who pays taxes for a 20k bomb to drop on a house in the middle of a desert? Nope. Is this the best for the average citizien who lives in the house next to the bombed house? Nope. Is this the best for those with the power, influence and money to benefit from the bomb being dropped and the war beign waged, yep.
The most warlike ideology, in most cases, doesn't benefit the majority of people. People were happy in those anarchistic communes, less so when the fascists marched in and shot them against walls. Would you, in this case say facism is better than anarcho communism? (also the facists, who already controlled most of the army, got lots of support from hitler, the republican communists (not the anarchists) got some support from the soviets, the brits and french were too facist friendly/too pussy to help out so it wasn't exactly a fair fight)[/QUOTE]
I'm arguing that one of the purposes of the state is to be able to defend itself and its citizens. Of course I wouldn't argue that it is the only purpose of the state (hence why I wouldn't argue that anarcho-communism is worse than fascism), but it is an important one. We don't live in a fantasy world where everyone is nice and no-one invades each other. We live in a world where Putin annexes his neighbours and where terrorists attack our society. I would rather live in a world where it wasn't necessary to spend billions on defending ourselves and where there was no war, but we simply don't. An anarchist state is inherently poor at defending itself from attack due to the lack of a centralised state.
Just a note on realism vs idealism.
I'm an idealist.
Realistically the most violent and oppressive regimes using nationalism or racial purity or scapegoating are very very successful ways to form and keep a state together. I do not think this makes them good ideologies.
Military industrial or coinage mercenary complexes are successful. Slavery or Bonded labour is successful. Ethnic cleansing to achieve racial homogeneity is successful in most cases for making stability for those left. Secret police, mass suvallaince and absolute control of media are successful. They're all pretty shitty though and the idealist inside me sees an ideology not resorting to any of these would be the better one in the ideal world.
[editline]27th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48992566]I'm arguing that one of the purposes of the state is to be able to defend itself and its citizens. Of course I wouldn't argue that it is the only purpose of the state (hence why I wouldn't argue that anarcho-communism is worse than fascism), but it is an important one. We don't live in a fantasy world where everyone is nice and no-one invades each other. We live in a world where Putin annexes his neighbours and where terrorists attack our society. I would rather live in a world where it wasn't necessary to spend billions on defending ourselves and where there was no war, but we simply don't. An anarchist state is inherently poor at defending itself from attack due to the lack of a centralised state.[/QUOTE]
Then instead of writing off other ideologies we can look to the future, adapt old ideologies, make new ones, address flaws in them.
Denouncing communism/socialism because the USSR, china and north korea were bad examples is exactly what rich capitalists want to keep their system popular. Denounce anarchism because all of its most successful examples are from antiquity or were crushed by much more powerful oppressive regimes seems like you are throwing something away.
Anarchy isn't about no authority. Anarchy is about rejecting illegitimate authority. An opt out/opt in for benefits system would still be capable of running a reasonable state with public spending, safe roads and a military (the boers operated militarily in an anarchistic fashion and did very well vs the british). Some anarchistic ideologies allow for states.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48992535]"laissez-faire" economy is also discredited and has been for years too, i don't know where you got the idea i supported it[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48979191]economics shouldn't be brought into the realm of politics, that's just calling for cancer to infect it[/QUOTE]
huh
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;48992611]huh[/QUOTE]
what do you even mean?
-snip already a discussion on this.-
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.