The path to communism....

[Chu]

Owners of capital will stimulate working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable.
The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of banks, which will have to be nationalized, and State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism.

I don't really have any discussion about it, but thought it was fairly interesting considering the times, perhaps something will spark.

[Det_Nosnip]

Yeah...too bad the state hasn't really nationalized the banks yet.

We'll get there.

[siva_chair]

Yeah...too bad the state hasn't really nationalized the banks yet.

We'll get there.

Well, they kinda already have. They certainly have a monopoly on the banking system via the Federal Reserve. Now, one could say "but the Federal Reserve is a private bank." It is private only in rhetoric. In actuality it essentially functions as the banking arm of the Treasury Dept.

[Aaron]

Does the Treasury Dept give the Federal Reserve directions?

[siva_chair]

Does the Treasury Dept give the Federal Reserve directions?

It is more like a cartel relationship, tbh.

[spitfirejunky]

Won't even have to get that far if these idiot banks stopped their negligent lending practices.

[siva_chair]

Well, banks wouldn't be lending in this manner if the market weren't so distorted and there weren't heaps of regulations to cause this sort of thing.

[pooble]

hah!

was this good or bad communism, in marx mind?

[Iskandar]

The real question is, where is this quote from, and why is he called Karletto Marx?

[Iscariot]

The real question is, where is this quote from, and why is he called Karletto Marx?

It looks like a layman's translation from The Communist Manifesto. I can't remember where I put my copy though, so I can't verify that.

And srsly :lol: @ Karletto.

[Iskandar]

I don't remember this from the Manifesto. It must be a pretty obscure passage.

[Iscariot]

I've read the manifesto four or five times and this definitely sounds familiar, but yeah it's likely not a highly important portion of the text.

[McP3000]

sounds like we're all going to be saved by Marxism after all

HALLELUJAH

[Iskandar]

Obama is a Marxist.

Vote Limbaugh 2012.

[siva_chair]

I've read the manifesto four or five times and this definitely sounds familiar, but yeah it's likely not a highly important portion of the text.

I have a question:

Why on earth would you waste your time reading that four or five times? :p

[Iskandar]

It was pretty influential, I think. Also it's short.

[siva_chair]

Yeah but there is little need to read it more than once (maybe twice for review).

[Iscariot]

I have a question:

Why on earth would you waste your time reading that four or five times? :p

Because I found it educational and interesting.

I read it four or fives times so that I could really get a firm grasp on the language used in the book and so that I could fully appreciate the ideology.

It left me with the feeling that Marx was just way, way ahead of his time. He was scoffed because of his predictions, which now, are becoming reality. If he had been born a few decades later he would have been taken more seriously.

[Iskandar]

His predictions about what? His popular revolution never materialized. He predicted things like globalization pretty accurately though.

[Iscariot]

His economic predictions and his expectations for western government.

[siva_chair]

His economics were way off base, though.

[Iscariot]

Not according to the modern global economic state.

[Iskandar]

His predictions that capitalism would suffer crises was correct. His solution to "centralize production in the hands of the state" proved to be a failure.

[siva_chair]

The man subscribed to the labor theory of value, which is completely bunk.

Also his argument that profits derive from the exploitation of workers is pretty retarded as well (which really can be seen as just another extension of the labor theory of value).

Marx was hardly the only person to suggest economic globalization, either.

Basically, he derived at a few correct predictions from false premises.

[Iskandar]

"Marxian Socialism must always remain a portent to the historians of Opinion — how a doctrine so illogical and so dull can have exercised so powerful and enduring an influence over the minds of men, and, through them, the events of history."

[siva_chair]

Well it did use a lot of appeals to emotion....

Which is not uncommon amongst socialists in general...:p

Also, it is kind of ironic to me that Keynes' quote seems to apply to his own theories as well.

[Iskandar]

Not disputing that. Though every political stripe does.

Basically, the whole thing is one huge non sequitur. "The working class has it bad, so we need to nationalize the entire economy." What?

[siva_chair]

Indeed

[McP3000]

i think itll be really funny if America socializes everything and then the people are like "we liked it the other way"

and the government will be like "nope"

ill lol

[Iskandar]

That's impossible, though. Unless Obama becomes a Communist dictator, which Fox News totally said he would!

[McP3000]

i meant in like 50 to 60 years, not tomorrow

[siva_chair]

Well let's see we are well on our way to socializing the banking institutions (which in a way, we kind of did so with the adoption of a central bank anyway, though I'm sure people will disagree with me), and perhaps even the American car makers (car czar?!?!?). We already have a socialized judicial system, a socialized military, socialized roads, etc., so it wouldn't be much of a stretch.

*puts on flame suit*

[fingers mccoy]

3 days of manual labour a week!

[McP3000]

Well let's see we are well on our way to socializing the banking institutions (which in a way, we kind of did so with the adoption of a central bank anyway, though I'm sure people will disagree with me), and perhaps even the American car makers (car czar?!?!?). We already have a socialized judicial system, a socialized military, socialized roads, etc., so it wouldn't be much of a stretch.

*puts on flame suit*
when they socialize our food supply

ill become anorexic. dead serious

[Iskandar]

Well let's see we are well on our way to socializing the banking institutions (which in a way, we kind of did so with the adoption of a central bank anyway, though I'm sure people will disagree with me), and perhaps even the American car makers (car czar?!?!?). We already have a socialized judicial system, a socialized military, socialized roads, etc., so it wouldn't be much of a stretch.

*puts on flame suit*Everyone has these things socialized though.

Everyone. Join the group. Go ahead, join in. Forget your individuality. You won't need it anymore. There is safety in numbers. Resistance is futile.

[siva_chair]

I don't really care if everyone has these things socialized, though. Everyone can be wrong.

[Iskandar]

Seriously, though, you guys are so paranoid. America is one of the most "free-market" systems out there. Which says a lot about the prospects for free markets.

[siva_chair]

It's not really. I don't think you realize how much bullpoop red tape people have to go through to start a business or do other things when it comes to business.

I know our leaders love to use free market rhetoric, but they are very much full of ****.

[Iskandar]

Relatively speaking, it is. It can't rival Hong Kong or something but there is comparatively little intervention compared to say Europe, and the great majority of ownership is private. At least that's how it was before the current crisis.

Also neoconservatives make me laugh when they extol the virtues of the free market while supporting massive military buildups and protectionism.

Anyway my original point was about you guys being paranoid. It's healthy to have a general distrust of government, but there is a point where it can be taken too far. The American government is bigger than it used to be, surely, but it's a long way away from being tyrannical.

[McP3000]

wait american politicians are full of **** wtf are you talking about you must be crazy

edit: i dont think America will ever be "tyrannical". itll go commie or stay the way it is.

[Iskandar]

wait american politicians are full of **** wtf are you talking about you must be crazy

edit: i dont think America will ever be "tyrannical". itll go commie or stay the way it is.All politicians are. America is not special in that regard.

Also lol at America going commie.

[McP3000]

hyperbole baby

i meant socialist but that wouldn't sound evil enough for America's Favorite Moderator

[siva_chair]

Relatively speaking, it is. It can't rival Hong Kong or something but there is comparatively little intervention compared to say Europe, and the great majority of ownership is private. At least that's how it was before the current crisis.

And the trend continues to go in a socialist direction, which is what makes me want to puke.

Also neoconservatives make me laugh when they extol the virtues of the free market while supporting massive military buildups and protectionism.

Yes they make me laugh too, because they are morons.

Anyway my original point was about you guys being paranoid. It's healthy to have a general distrust of government, but there is a point where it can be taken too far. The American government is bigger than it used to be, surely, but it's a long way away from being tyrannical.

For every bit the government grows, the closer it gets to being as such. You can call me paranoid, but the trend and direction of our government is going (and has been for about 150 years now) supports this. The only difference now is that the level of interventionist measures being taken is unprecedented.

[Iskandar]

Government intervention doesn't necessarily lead to tyranny though. As long as the basic precepts of democracy are strong, government is still limited. This is evidenced by the great number of countries which are more interventionist than the US but still score higher on many indices of freedom.

[siva_chair]

Government intervention doesn't necessarily lead to tyranny though. As long as the basic precepts of democracy are strong, government is still limited. This is evidenced by the great number of countries which are more interventionist than the US but still score higher on many indices of freedom.

Democracy is tyranny. And largely a farce.

[Iskandar]

If you say so. I would tend to side with the liberal belief that an unlimited government is tyranny.

Though I freely acknowledge democracy is far from perfect and political representation goes far beyond voting every four years.

[siva_chair]

If you say so. I would tend to side with the liberal belief that an unlimited government is tyranny.

I never said it wasn't.

But that is a very very limited view of tyranny (and one that ignores the tyranny of the majority). Especially if we were to look at the origins of the word (hey there's a linguistic excercise for ya!).

[Iskandar]

I believe it originally referred to a ruler who governs by passion rather than the public interest. It's obviously Ancient Greek like many political terms (which makes sense given Athens is supposed to be the birthplace of democracy and all that, which is debatable).

Anyway there are measures in a democracy which are supposed to limit the tyranny of the majority. Though I tend to take a dim view of majority rules, preferring more consensus-based methods. And majority rules can't prevent crap like the two-party system.

[siva_chair]

I believe it originally referred to a ruler who governs by passion rather than the public interest. It's obviously Ancient Greek like many political terms (which makes sense given Athens is supposed to be the birthplace of democracy and all that, which is debatable).

Anyway there are measures in a democracy which are supposed to limit the tyranny of the majority. Though I tend to take a dim view of majority rules, preferring more consensus-based methods. And majority rules can't prevent crap like the two-party system.

The word as we use it itself comes from the latin root of 'tyrannus,' which literally means 'illegitimate ruler.' But yes, it ultimately came from the Greeks and just essentially meant 'sovereign.'

Kant called democracy despotism. It is simply a myth that democracy empowers the people. It is clear that in the last century, democracy has arguably caused, not hindered, the massive expansion of government.

[Iskandar]

Government was huge in the time of monarchy and not at all accountable to the people.

[Give me Beer]

His predictions that capitalism would suffer crises was correct. His solution to "centralize production in the hands of the state" proved to be a failure.

Just a side note though, but are you talking about communism in one country? Because as I understood it, it would have to be a world wide international change for MArx to work, not the lame Stalin derrivative.

EDIT:

Also, government wasn't huge in time of Monarchy, in fact it was pretty small. Source: The Birth of the Modern World 1780 - 1914 by C.A.Bayly pp. 30-36.

;)

[DBoons Ghost]

It's not really. I don't think you realize how much bullpoop red tape people have to go through to start a business or do other things when it comes to business.

I know our leaders love to use free market rhetoric, but they are very much full of ****.

What?

Could you provide examples? I started a business for the cost of incorporating.

What red tape are you talking about?

[Iskandar]

Just a side note though, but are you talking about communism in one country? Because as I understood it, it would have to be a world wide international change for MArx to work, not the lame Stalin derrivative.Yes, he believed revolutions would happen worldwide, and that they would be the product of crises of capitalism. Obviously this never happened.
Also, government wasn't huge in time of Monarchy, in fact it was pretty small. Lolwut?

[Give me Beer]

Yes, he believed revolutions would happen worldwide, and that they would be the product of crises of capitalism. Obviously this never happened.

Yes, hasn't happened, I didn't imply that did I? That was my point. Although we could make allowences for the fact that Marx did predict that it would happen spontanously and not forced like say, Russia 1917.

Furthermore, we aren't at the end of history yet, are we? ;) That's not to say that it will happen, I'm just saying ..

Lolwut?

Well, I'm assuming you're talking Monarchy as in 17th - 18th century here, and not constitutional Monarchy like my country is now ...

If that's the case then, well, small government in reality. Or as Bayly puts it, mostly a trick of light. Care to prove me wrong? Please cite sources.

[siva_chair]

Government was huge in the time of monarchy and not at all accountable to the people.

No, that is a myth. Government itself was not that big under monarchy, as Mr. Beer pointed out.

What?

Could you provide examples? I started a business for the cost of incorporating.

What red tape are you talking about?

I'm primarily talking about the taxes, regulations (which is, of course, dependent on what industry you are in), zoning licenses (yes, the internet has helped in this aspect), business licenses, etc. The tax structure can be a nightmare. Of course, this does depend on what your business is, as well, as some are easier to start than others.

Sure, it is easier than many places, but it also is harder than many places as well. Business has more freedom in Canada and most Scandinavian countries (Norway being the only exception I believe) than it does in the US, for instance.

[mph4ever]

they have nationalized a bank here in ireland. everyone has taken their money out a legged it for fear of tax man and investigations into "free market" activities. now they are just managing perception. they said there was no chance of them nationalizing any more banks since it would do catastrophic damage to other countries and investors perception of ireland.

i am amazed that marx never foresaw this. marx < nostradamus presently

[DBoons Ghost]

I'm primarily talking about the taxes, regulations (which is, of course, dependent on what industry you are in), zoning licenses (yes, the internet has helped in this aspect), business licenses, etc. The tax structure can be a nightmare. Of course, this does depend on what your business is, as well, as some are easier to start than others.

Sure, it is easier than many places, but it also is harder than many places as well. Business has more freedom in Canada and most Scandinavian countries (Norway being the only exception I believe) than it does in the US, for instance.

Well, I suppose you're right it does depend on the business and whether or not you employ people. I have 2 employees. The state (NY State, I mean) does try and jerk me every chance they get. I have to pay taxes on projected worker's comp insurance as well as taxes on projected unemployment insurance for example, and inevitably the cost is on the employee but I have to pay it quarterly for them first. That's pretty much it. As long as I file quarterly and pay all taxes, I'm good to go.

This varies state to state as well if you employ folks out of state. I had to pass on contracts in New Jersey and Connecticut for example just because the tax code was too complicated for me to figure out without paying an accountant, and it's always a pain in the butt to pay NYC taxes. See, you have to pay extra taxes if you work in New York City then you would if you worked anywhere else. Payroll is pretty easy though if you use Quickbooks or something.

[siva_chair]

Well, I suppose you're right it does depend on the business and whether or not you employ people. I have 2 employees. The state (NY State, I mean) does try and jerk me every chance they get. I have to pay taxes on projected worker's comp insurance as well as taxes on projected unemployment insurance for example, and inevitably the cost is on the employee but I have to pay it quarterly for them first. That's pretty much it. As long as I file quarterly and pay all taxes, I'm good to go.

This varies state to state as well if you employ folks out of state. I had to pass on contracts in New Jersey and Connecticut for example just because the tax code was too complicated for me to figure out without paying an accountant, and it's always a pain in the butt to pay NYC taxes. See, you have to pay extra taxes if you work in New York City then you would if you worked anywhere else. Payroll is pretty easy though if you use Quickbooks or something.

Yeah I wasn't intending to sound like every single business has to jump through flaming hoops of red tape, but there is a lot of unnecessary BS involved in it. And it just keeps getting worse and worse, tbh.

[jaredong]

i was under the impression that partly why Marx was wrong in predicting a revolution was that he only looked internally within the state. With more and more poverty and unemployment, and more and more concentration of capital within the closed system of a country, the working class would eventually rise up.

Then, I think it was Lenin who proposed that the original predictions were wrong because European colonialism allowed for the expansion of capitalism to overseas markets. Hence, colonialism allowed the "venting" of excess capital and exploitation of workers overseas. Consequently, when the world's land has been fully colonized, it'll lead to conflict and then they'll be a revolution.

Then, i think it was someone, whos name escapes me, that proposed that Lenin's predictions were wrong because he was unable to forsee that capitalism was able to co-opt many of the working classes interests to prevent from being overthrown. As such, the welfare state was created so that the people would never reach beyond a certain level of poverty to get that mad at things.

Point is, I think when critiquing Marxism we should not just look at what Marx thought and say the whole theory is wrong. Instead, it is necessary to look at what alot of later Marxist thinkers added to the theory.

/not a marxist btw heh, just saying

[siva_chair]

Marxism still is based in false premises. Those socialists that reject the various premises aren't considered Marxists, usually.

Not much reason to critique Marx anymore. Plenty of people have done a very thorough job of that throughout the years.

[Iskandar]

Most socialists are not Marxists and haven't been for over a hundred years. Social democracy/democratic socialism developed out a rejection of Marxist ideas like revolution and class warfare.

[kitsch]

ppl have been predicting this forev
it aint gonna happen

in order for a state to grow
there has to be capatalism
and there has to be a gov't regulating the capatalism.
communism is a scam
and socialism becomes stagnant overtime.

[Iskandar]

Thank you for that illuminating discourse on capatalism.

[siva_chair]

lol capatalism

[Iskandar]

in order for a state to grow
there has to be capatalism
Lol wut. Pretty sure there was a state before there was "capatalism." As in there was for thousands of years before.

I don't know where they dig up these guys.

[cobert]

ppl have been predicting this forev
it aint gonna happen

in order for a state to grow
there has to be capatalism
and there has to be a gov't regulating the capatalism.
communism is a scam
and socialism becomes stagnant overtime.

Plenty of Marxists think that Capitalism has to be fully developed before socialism can come to fruition. Once automation has reached a point where the work day is shortened even more, people could take control of the means of production, make the most for their labor, and spend more time on pursuits outside of business. It's more of a natural epoch that will follow capitalism. Concentrating power over business to the state is never a good idea, that's a right wing, Bolshevik offshoot of 'left communism'. Socialism doesn't necessarily mean a centralization of industry, it simply means giving workers proper control of business, eliminating the capitalist middle man between them and the consumer.

Social democracy/democratic socialism developed out a rejection of Marxist ideas like revolution and class warfare.

Anyone that denies class war exists is a fool.

Marx may have been wrong about a worldwide evolution happening, but he was generally a smart guy and got plenty of other things right.

[Iskandar]

I'm not denying there is conflict between people of different income levels and social positions. But outright "warfare" between clearly defined social classes is a retarded idea.
Plenty of Marxists think that Capitalism has to be fully developed before socialism can come to fruition. Once automation has reached a point where the work day is shortened even more, people could take control of the means of production, make the most for their labor, and spend more time on pursuits outside of business. It's more of a natural epoch that will follow capitalism. Concentrating power over business to the state is never a good idea, that's a right wing, Bolshevik offshoot of 'left communism'. Socialism doesn't necessarily mean a centralization of industry, it simply means giving workers proper control of business, eliminating the capitalist middle man between them and the consumer.These are perfectly valid ideas but they aren't Marxism. Marx believed in revolution, not evolution, and that the state had to take ownership of industry into its own hands.

[cobert]

I'm not denying there is conflict between people of different income levels and social positions. But outright "warfare" between clearly defined social classes is a retarded idea.

Warfare is a bit of a stretch when describing simple conflict of interest, but it can be argued that the race riots of the 1960's were closely related to class, and obviously hunger riots are good examples When "struggle" reaches a boiling point, straight up "warfare" occurs.

These are perfectly valid ideas but they aren't Marxism. Marx believed in revolution, not evolution, and that the state had to take ownership of industry into its own hands.

"Democracy is the road to socialism." - Karl Marx

Marx would like the state to take ownership of industry, but preferably a democratic state rather than some authoritarian one party system. The Soviet Union post 1924 is a terrible perversion of Marx.

Additionally, Marx kind of contradicts himself. He talks about the abolition of alienation and exploitation and then about getting rid of markets and wanting centralized planning, which just continutes the cycle of alienation. Really, I think what he wants (think being a key word, Marx can be interpreted differently, so by no means is your interpretation "wrong", I just disagree with it) is for centralized planning through democracy as a means to equality, and the vital organs of workers control will slowly eliminate the need of most of the coercive measures of government and eventually classless communism will happen.

Marx did advocate revolution, but it must be at the right time. He thought the right time was the 19th century and specifically in Germany, and he was wrong.

[McP3000]

people often predict change should happen/will happen much earlier than they actually do

[Sk0rpi0n]

"The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere." - Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto

This is a reference to a key ingredient of Marxist thought that I believe this discussion -- which is very good by the way -- is missing. Yes Marx predicts a worldwide uprising of the proletariat to overthrow capitalism, but he sees it as occurring at the end of history, once capitalism has established itself everywhere (an ongoing process now called globalization).

The problem is that Marx's own call to have "the workers of the world unite" preempted this series of events from taking place. Marx's predicted revolution has actually been postponed by the forced communist revolutions we've seen in Russia, China and other locales. Why were they "forced" revolutions? Because capitalism had not necessarily taken root around the globe. Many areas went straight from mercantilism, barter and specialized "tribal" systems (ie. foraging) to forced communism. Thus capitalism had never developed.

Is Marx right? I don't know. But saying this particular prediction has been discredited by citing corrupt examples such as Russia, China or any state, misses the point completely.

Declaring Marx wrong or right is premature until history ends and capitalism settles everywhere.

[StreetlightRock]

Why not? Even if you decide historical criteria are not enough to judge Marxism, economists from as far back in the 1940s pretty much dismantled the Marxist economic theory that back it up. Thats not even to mention that attacks that have come from the theoretical and cultural spectrum of intellectuals.

[Sk0rpi0n]

Why not? Even if you decide historical criteria are not enough to judge Marxism, economists from as far back in the 1940s pretty much dismantled the Marxist economic theory that back it up. Thats not even to mention that attacks that have come from the theoretical and cultural spectrum of intellectuals.

I'd agree with you that a large amount of Marxist theory -- especially on the economic side -- has been discredited. But that was not the subject of my post.

I'm trying to point out that a proper test of this particular theory has not yet occurred -- and may never occur. The argument is that a social theory like this is not testable in any kind of controlled environment. Simply put, far reaching predictions such as this can only be tested by history. Otherwise you are merely speculating on speculation.

[siva_chair]

I'd agree with you that a large amount of Marxist theory -- especially on the economic side -- has been discredited. But that was not the subject of my post.

I'm trying to point out that a proper test of this particular theory has not yet occurred -- and may never occur. The argument is that a social theory like this is not testable in any kind of controlled environment. Simply put, far reaching predictions such as this can only be tested by history. Otherwise you are merely speculating on speculation.

If it does occur it is still a theory that predicts things on false premises.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[Sk0rpi0n]

If it does occur it is still a theory that predicts things on false premises.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Yeah, but that same broken clock is wrong 1438 times too. (LoL)

The premise that capitalism will spread across the earth seems to be coming true in my estimation (globalization). The revolution -- depending on how you read Marx -- is supposed to come after that.

Which premise are you referring too and why do you call it false?

[siva_chair]

Yeah, but that same broken clock is wrong 1438 times too. (LoL)

Yeah that's the point. I'm likening Marx to a broken clock.

The premise that capitalism will spread across the earth seems to be coming true in my estimation (globalization). The revolution -- depending on how you read Marx -- is supposed to come after that.

Of course globalization is taking place, but Marx shouldn't be hailed as some visionary genius for stating that, as he was hardly the only person in that time to propose such a thing.

Which premise are you referring too and why do you call it false?

Pretty much all his economic reasoning (which is where he derives much of his social theories from).

Though I will say that Marx did point out a few things about state capitalism that pretty much hold true, even if he arrived at them through faulty reasoning.

[Iskandar]

Why do people keep thinking history has an end?

[siva_chair]

Solar flares and the book of Revelations dude.

2012 AD

[StreetlightRock]

because it sounds so cool!

seriously the only valid reason.

Simply put, far reaching predictions such as this can only be tested by history.

I don't think it's such a stretch to dismiss Marx when we know as much as we do. I mean, empirical testing on not, the amount of work devoted to the study of Marxism is enough that neither you or I could possibly read it all in a lifetime. I don't think it's fair to dismiss that as pure speculation.

[McP3000]

Solar flares and the book of Revelations dude.

2012 AD
im already searching for front row tickets you should too

[siva_chair]

Exactly.

There simply isn't much of a reason to hold his theories as very valid (even if he happens to be correct about some "global workers revolution") if the vast majority of the premises he used to arrive at these predictions have been shown to be incorrect or deeply flawed.

[siva_chair]

im already searching for front row tickets you should too

Priceline Negotiator dude.

We will.....boldly go...where no man....has gone before.

[Sk0rpi0n]

Of course globalization is taking place, but Marx shouldn't be hailed as some visionary genius for stating that, as he was hardly the only person in that time to propose such a thing.

"Of course globalization is taking place"
They call that hindsight 20/20.

The idea that capitalism was an expansionist ideology is credited to Marx and Marx alone (he was the first). Defining this before the rise of the trans national-corporation, free trade and free market ideology qualifies as being pretty insightful. Hell, less than 25 years ago many were still calling the fall of communism and the spread of capitalism a pipe dream...

Pretty much all his economic reasoning (which is where he derives much of his social theories from).

Though I will say that Marx did point out a few things about state capitalism that pretty much hold true, even if he arrived at them through faulty reasoning.

Of course he did. Pretty hard to deny that his theories on class struggle, control of the means of production by a few, the value of education (men and WOMEN), the unstable nature of capitalism, the inefficiency of resource use in capitalism and the spread of capitalism were wrong. The premises aren't all faulty when the conclusions are correct.

On the other hand, his theories on labor value and the effectiveness of a command economy (among others) have not held up so well. He seems to be as much of a mixed bag as any political/economic theorist.

Why do people keep thinking history has an end?

They've read to much Hegel and Marx???

[siva_chair]

"Of course globalization is taking place"
They call that hindsight 20/20.

The idea that capitalism was an expansionist ideology is credited to Marx and Marx alone (he was the first). Defining this before the rise of the trans national-corporation, free trade and free market ideology qualifies as being pretty insightful. Hell, less than 25 years ago many were still calling the fall of communism and the spread of capitalism a pipe dream...

Umm you realize both Smith, Ricardo, and Mills all commented on the spread and expansion of capitalism, right?

(Marx probably got the idea from Smith and Ricardo, tbh).

Of course he did. Pretty hard to deny that his theories on class struggle,

Actually it isn't, as his basis of it (historical materialism) has been shown to have serious flaws by many different people.

control of the means of production by a few,

Once again, historical materialism.

the value of education (men and WOMEN),

He should hardly get credit for this, as he certainly wasn't the first to propose such ideas.

the unstable nature of capitalism,

It is unstable? You mean like his centrally planned economies?

the inefficiency of resource use in capitalism

Actually this is very wrong, as free market capitalism is far more efficient at allocating resources than any centralized economy.

and the spread of capitalism were wrong.

Again not really the first to claim capitalism would spread and expand.

The premises aren't all faulty when the conclusions are correct.

Yes, they actually are faulty. The whole underlying premise of most of his theory is faulty.

On the other hand, his theories on labor value and the effectiveness of a command economy (among others) have not held up so well. He seems to be as much of a mixed bag as any political/economic theorist.

He has been wrong far more times in his analysis than he has been right.

[Iskandar]

Every economy is inefficient.

Marx is garbage.

[siva_chair]

Well that depends on your definition of what is efficient, really. Obviously for an economy to be 100% efficient, it would require omniscience for all actors.

But yes, Marx is indeed garbage.

[Iskandar]

Yes which is why no economy is efficient. Though they can be Pareto efficient.

And clearly market economies are more efficient than command economies which would need perfect information to work properly, which doesn't exist in a market economy either.

[siva_chair]

Yes which is why no economy is efficient. Though they can be Pareto efficient.

And clearly market economies are more efficient than command economies which would need perfect information to work properly, which doesn't exist in a market economy either.

Well that is the beauty of a market economy: You don't need perfect information for it to work. Thus the reason the price mechanism contributes to a more rational allocation of resources.

[Iskandar]

No but that doesn't mean the market always works perfectly either.

[siva_chair]

If by perfect you mean "100% efficient at all times" then I would agree (I don't believe I have ever heard anyone claim this). This is absolutely humanly impossible, though, so I don't see how that is at all a valid criticism.

[McP3000]

market economies aren't 100% perfect all the time

therefore we should be socialist

[Iskandar]

There is a middle ground you know.

[TheDarkHorse]

If by perfect you mean "100% efficient at all times" then I would agree (I don't believe I have ever heard anyone claim this). This is absolutely humanly impossible, though, so I don't see how that is at all a valid criticism.

um you're arguing on the basis of efficiency and pure capitalist economies are not 100% efficient therefore there must be a more efficient means perhaps a socialist-market economy why can't you see this.

[Chu]

My dad cracks a fat over Marx, there must be some reason.

Actually, there's a lot of support for Marx at my university in general.

I've never investigated it really, but I have been asked to attend some "left-wing" meeting that the ANU Socialists have or something. I never went. :p

[Iskandar]

um you're arguing on the basis of efficiency and pure capitalist economies are not 100% efficient therefore there must be a more efficient means perhaps a socialist-market economy why can't you see this.That wouldn't be 100% efficient either. Though it would alleviate some of the problems inherent in a purely market system, albeit while creating problems of its own.
Actually, there's a lot of support for Marx at my university in general.Marxism is very popular with ivory tower academics and not at all with politicians and the people in the real world who vote for them.

[TheDarkHorse]

That wouldn't be 100% efficient either. Though it would alleviate some of the problems inherent in a purely market system, albeit while creating problems of its own.

Ah you see I'm saying if one system is not 100% efficient your goal is to look for the most efficient you can't discard a new idea without measuring its efficiency especially if your pure capitalist economy is not efficient.

I thought I was clear

[DJ Karl Marx]

Every economy is inefficient.

Marx is garbage.
excuse me i put a lot of time into what music i select, and all of my sounds come from if not my heart and my soul, then at least from within my ear's cochlea, or my finger tips. i don't know why, why would you call me garbage? :( i've made mistakes before but i am not the aborted fetus of an idea :(

[Sk0rpi0n]

Umm you realize both Smith, Ricardo, and Mills all commented on the spread and expansion of capitalism, right?

(Marx probably got the idea from Smith and Ricardo, tbh).

Yes, but none of them predicted it creeping across every inch of the globe. Smith and Ricardo both believed that some people could not be immediately civilized (Ie. they bought into English imperialism and the White Man's burden, believing that some had to be "governed" as if they were property), while Mills first commented on the spread of capitalism in 1848 (the same year as the Communist Manifesto).

Actually it isn't, as his basis of it (historical materialism) has been shown to have serious flaws by many different people.

Once again, historical materialism.

Which people? How are the premises flawed? You keep dodging this question.
In any event, even Marx and Engels argued that Historical materialism had become warped and corrupted by other Marxists. Perhaps this is why Marx himself never used the words "dialectical materialism" and only scantly "historical materialism".

He should hardly get credit for this, as he certainly wasn't the first to propose such ideas.

I didn't say he proposed this idea first. I said he was right.

It is unstable? You mean like his centrally planned economies?

That's a stinky Red Herring.


Actually this is very wrong, as free market capitalism is far more efficient at allocating resources than any centralized economy.

I didn't say it wasn't. I merely said that capitalism is inefficient

Yes, they actually are faulty. The whole underlying premise of most of his theory is faulty.

You still haven't provided an explanation.

He has been wrong far more times in his analysis than he has been right.

I said he was a mixed bag. I wasn't making an argument about how accurate he was. You are arguing with yourself.

[Sk0rpi0n]

Marxism is very popular with ivory tower academics and not at all with politicians and the people in the real world who vote for them.

That's a pretty sweeping generalization, but ideology is not one size fits all. Marxism seems to be rather popular in Venezuela, Germany, France, Belgium and all other European states that continually elect members of Communist and Socialist parties.

Now I am aware that this doesn't make these parties strictly Marxist, but there is no denying the influence Marxism and Marx's work in general has had on the left of the political spectrum.

[TheDarkHorse]

I said he was a mixed bag. I wasn't making an argument about how accurate he was. You are arguing with yourself.
Siva_Chair in 3 sentences you finally got it

[Iskandar]

That's a pretty sweeping generalization, but ideology is not one size fits all. Marxism seems to be rather popular in Venezuela, Germany, France, Belgium and all other European states that continually elect members of Communist and Socialist parties.

Now I am aware that this doesn't make these parties strictly Marxist, but there is no denying the influence Marxism and Marx's work in general has had on the left of the political spectrum.Yes, he has had a profound influence on the left but the socialist parties that have made the most electoral gains have been those that abandoned Marxism in favour of more moderate ideologies like democratic socialism.

I question whether Marx is relevant in a modern information society. I don't think he foresaw the power of reformism nor the rise of collective bargaining.

[Sk0rpi0n]

Yes, he has had a profound influence on the left but the socialist parties that have made the most electoral gains have been those that abandoned Marxism in favour of more moderate ideologies like democratic socialism.

I agree. The parties that occupy moderate territory seem to do best regardless of which side of the spectrum they sit on. I suppose this is mainly the result of the need to appeal to the broadest base of supporters possible -- in effect acting as "catch all" parties -- if a party hopes to remain relevant and effective. Perhaps this is why the differences between Liberals/Conservatives, Democrats/Republicans and Whig/Labor have narrowed so much over the past century. Not due to left/right ideology, but to appeal to everybody.

I question whether Marx is relevant in a modern information society. I don't think he foresaw the power of reformism nor the rise of collective bargaining.

Your definitely right that his influence declined with the effectiveness of reformism and collective bargaining, in addition to the advent of the welfare state and moderate approaches. But is he still relevant? I'd say so.
With the emergence of "green" politics and globalization/anti-globalization movements, he has probably become more relevant over the last decade then he was in the 90s after the fall of communism. Many predicted the end of ideological politics and Marx inspired left wing strategies when the Soviet union collapsed, but I think it was just the end of "popular" authoritarianism amongst leftists. The ideology is still clearly prevalent in many sociodemocratic models.

But I'm rambling.... Good discussion.

[Iskandar]

I read your whole post and it was good but I'm just responding to this part, okay?But is he still relevant? I'd say so.
With the emergence of "green" politics and globalization/anti-globalization movements, he has probably become more relevant over the last decade then he was in the 90s after the fall of communism.Marx's real legacy isn't his now superseded theories but the spirit of criticism. In an age of so-called neo-liberalism his critique of capitalism resonates with anti-globalization activists and the embattered labour movement.

[cobert]

I agree. The parties that occupy moderate territory seem to do best regardless of which side of the spectrum they sit on. I suppose this is mainly the result of the need to appeal to the broadest base of supporters possible -- in effect acting as "catch all" parties -- if a party hopes to remain relevant and effective. Perhaps this is why the differences between Liberals/Conservatives, Democrats/Republicans and Whig/Labor have narrowed so much over the past century. Not due to left/right ideology, but to appeal to everybody.

The 'appeal to a broad base' makes the people complacent and content, one of the reasons why Marxists usually stress revolution. The crumbs falling from the table may have gotten bigger, but they are just that - crumbs, with workers never getting a full slice of the bread. The capitalist model is still broken and leads to to exploitation and alienation. His influence has indeed declined, but only because moderate reformism appealed to the bourgeoisie A LOT more than revolution socialism did. And when the ruling class - the class that owns the media, runs the education system, and has lackeys in politics - agrees with something, they can usually get their way.

As for if he is relevant or not, I would say his theories definitely don't hold as much water in the information age as they did during the nineteenth century. Of course, modern Marxists only subscribe to those theories that are relevant, and general criticism of capitalism and globalization obviously has this Revised Marxist angle to them.

[griftadan]

Well, they kinda already have. They certainly have a monopoly on the banking system via the Federal Reserve. Now, one could say "but the Federal Reserve is a private bank." It is private only in rhetoric. In actuality it essentially functions as the banking arm of the Treasury Dept.

of course this ignores the minimal oversight the government has on the federal reserve

and marx's prediction only really works for a few countries, lots of other capitalist countries have high savings rates and run trade and current account surpluses

[Iskandar]

The 'appeal to a broad base' makes the people complacent and content, one of the reasons why Marxists usually stress revolution. The crumbs falling from the table may have gotten bigger, but they are just that - crumbs, with workers never getting a full slice of the bread. The capitalist model is still broken and leads to to exploitation and alienation. His influence has indeed declined, but only because moderate reformism appealed to the bourgeoisie A LOT more than revolution socialism did. And when the ruling class - the class that owns the media, runs the education system, and has lackeys in politics - agrees with something, they can usually get their way.Okay, but workers have a much bigger slice of the pie than they ever did in Marx's time. That is assuming everyone can be neatly divided into two categories based on their relation to capital, and there is never any overlap.

And obviously reformism appealed to lots of working class and middle class people too or these parties would have never been elected. I don't know why people think we have to have a revolution in order to enact any meaningful change.

[cobert]

Okay, but workers have a much bigger slice of the pie than they ever did in Marx's time. That is assuming everyone can be neatly divided into two categories based on their relation to capital, and there is never any overlap.

And obviously reformism appealed to lots of working class and middle class people too or these parties would have never been elected. I don't know why people think we have to have a revolution in order to enact any meaningful change.

Of course the reformism appealed to the working class, they make up a majority of the population, but they vote for light reforms because of false class consciousness and, as I said, being complacent with reforms that give them a bigger piece of the pie instead of the whole pie they deserve.

I don't think a revolution is necessary for meaningful change, I'm just arguing the Marxist perspective that meaningful change entails ending capitalism and reforms do nothing but to placate the masses.

(I am a socialist by the way, I just hop back and forth between RAH RAH SIS BOOM BAH FIGHT THE POWER and softy market socialist.)

[Sk0rpi0n]

Okay, but workers have a much bigger slice of the pie than they ever did in Marx's time.

I don't know if I agree or disagree with this statement. I think that this viewpoint is supported by the growth of the middle class, but in relative terms, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer seems to be a rule Ie. America Vs. Central Africa.

Even so, Capitalism offers a more immediate solution to this problem then socialism, SO I guess its a moot point.

And obviously reformism appealed to lots of working class and middle class people too or these parties would have never been elected. I don't know why people think we have to have a revolution in order to enact any meaningful change.

Prolly because revolutions have been romanticized so well (propaganda)???
I think some people would prefer to tear down a system -- doing all the work and getting all the credit -- rather than going about the easier process of reforming functional systems.

[Iskandar]

I don't know if I agree or disagree with this statement. I think that this viewpoint is supported by the growth of the middle class, but in relative terms, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer seems to be a ruleThe problem is the rise of neo-liberal ideology which is bent on destroying the welfare state and egalitarianism.
as I said, being complacent with reforms that give them a bigger piece of the pie instead of the whole pie they deserve.Nobody deserves the whole pie. Both labour and management have their places, and neither is necessarily worth more than the other. In any event their disputes should be settled through the collective bargaining process.
I don't think a revolution is necessary for meaningful change, I'm just arguing the Marxist perspective that meaningful change entails ending capitalism and reforms do nothing but to placate the masses.Reforms have done a lot of good though. Revolutions have gotten us nowhere.

[cobert]

Nobody deserves the whole pie. Both labour and management have their places, and neither is necessarily worth more than the other. In any event their disputes should be settled through the collective bargaining process.

Perhaps no one group deserves the whole pie, but one definitely deserves a more fair share. Collective bargaining is one means to attaining this, yes.

Reforms have done a lot of good though. Revolutions have gotten us nowhere.

I disagree. Even if the revolutions didn't succeed, they show the ruling class the alternative to their current system and pave the way for reform. Still, living in capitalism, even with reforms, can be seen as a losing battle for the working class unless they revolt.

[Iskandar]

Perhaps no one group deserves the whole pie, but one definitely deserves a more fair share. Collective bargaining is one means to attaining this, yes.Not denying that labour has usually gotten the short end of the stick. But its position is far better than it historically was. What's more worrying is the serious decline in union membership in many countries.
I disagree. Even if the revolutions didn't succeed, they show the ruling class the alternative to their current system and pave the way for reform. Still, living in capitalism, even with reforms, can be seen as a losing battle for the working class unless they revolt.Which revolutions are you thinking of?

[cobert]

Not denying that labour has usually gotten the short end of the stick. But its position is far better than it historically was. What's more worrying is the serious decline in union membership in many countries.

What is the reason for the decline in union membership?

I honestly don't understand it.

Which revolutions are you thinking of?

I was speaking more broadly than revolutions and really considering rebellions. Actually, revolutions can just create power vacuums and can end a lot worse than if the revolution would have failed.

[Iskandar]

What is the reason for the decline in union membership?

I honestly don't understand it.Globalization. Trading with foreign countries which don't have or actively suppress unionization, and thus have a comparative advantage. There's more to it of course.
I was speaking more broadly than revolutions and really considering rebellions.Yeah but which ones in particular? Certainly not Marxist-Leninist revolutions.
Actually, revolutions can just create power vacuums and can end a lot worse than if the revolution would have failed.Ain't that the truth.

[cobert]

Globalization. Trading with foreign countries which don't have or actively suppress unionization, and thus have a comparative advantage. There's more to it of course.

Yeah, I was thinking along these lines. Unions lose strength when their job could just move out of the country.

Yeah but which ones in particular? Certainly not Marxist-Leninist revolutions.

A revolution so radical either succeeds or its failure brings with it the opposite of what was intended. A broad struggle for minor reforms is much more likely to work. This doesn't change the fact that anything less than a dismantling of capitalism is a loss for a socialist movement, but that's just arguing in circles.

[DJ Karl Marx]

Reforms have done a lot of good though. Revolutions have gotten us nowhere.
what happened with you? in averting your former socialism you've given yourself a complete aversion to anything associated with it. how could you say revolutions and marx are worthless- absolutely? starting simply within the single individual soul revolution is one of the utmost important processes we can undertake. it becomes dangerous when it is collectively undertaken, as something like the russian revolution will attest. but how many revolutions are there besides this one, and how can you say absolutely that they have gotten us nowhere, done nothing at all for the good, ruined completely unjustifiably the status quo? though, the status quo can never be consumed in a revolution, because as i just said revolution begins in the soul, and no social revolution can light the spark of change continually in the individual.

[Iskandar]

I am a socialist. Just not a Marxist or anything.
This doesn't change the fact that anything less than a dismantling of capitalism is a loss for a socialist movementThat's not true though. Look at how things were just a century ago.

[cobert]

That's not true though. Look at how things were just a century ago.

SCORE

Workers: X
Bourgeoisie: X+3

[siva_chair]

um you're arguing on the basis of efficiency and pure capitalist economies are not 100% efficient therefore there must be a more efficient means perhaps a socialist-market economy why can't you see this.

Umm just because market economies aren't 100% efficient doesn't mean another one is better. Socialist-market economies sure as hell aren't why can't you see this.

The only economy that could possibly be 100% efficient would be one controlled by an omniscient God. Unfortunately, us mere humans don't have access to that kind of insight, so we have to make due with what we have.

Ah you see I'm saying if one system is not 100% efficient your goal is to look for the most efficient you can't discard a new idea without measuring its efficiency especially if your pure capitalist economy is not efficient.

I thought I was clear

Except a pure capitalist economy's efficiency is > every other one.

Yes, but none of them predicted it creeping across every inch of the globe. Smith and Ricardo both believed that some people could not be immediately civilized (Ie. they bought into English imperialism and the White Man's burden, believing that some had to be "governed" as if they were property), while Mills first commented on the spread of capitalism in 1848 (the same year as the Communist Manifesto).

It is hardly much of a feat of great insight to get from said authors proposing the spread of capitalism to Marx's idea.


Which people? How are the premises flawed? You keep dodging this question.

See: Karl Popper, Ludwig Von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard, etc.

It is flawed for numerous reasons. To use Popper's argument: Marx assumes that the development of human societies follows a fixed and discernable set of rules.

In any event, even Marx and Engels argued that Historical materialism had become warped and corrupted by other Marxists. Perhaps this is why Marx himself never used the words "dialectical materialism" and only scantly "historical materialism".

Yes but I'm not talking about what other Marxists have said, I am talking about what Marx himself said.

I didn't say he proposed this idea first. I said he was right.

So?

That's a stinky Red Herring.

Well I don't see where it makes much sense to laud someone so much for complaining about how capitalism is unstable and proposes it is replaced by something far less stable.


I didn't say it wasn't. I merely said that capitalism is inefficient

And? I don't see what the point is in leveling that as a criticism when every single economy is inefficient by that standard.

You still haven't provided an explanation.

Historical Materialism is flawed. What way would you like me to point out it is flawed? I'm not going to write a book for you on it, that has been done enough in the past century.

I said he was a mixed bag. I wasn't making an argument about how accurate he was. You are arguing with yourself.

Actually you made the that claim he was correct (and therefor his premises were not flawed). In other words you were making a statement about how accurate he was.

of course this ignores the minimal oversight the government has on the federal reserve

No, it really doesn't. The Fed's monopoly is a government granted privilidge.

The Fed is acts in collusion with the Treasury dept. Not only that, the chairman of the Fed is selected by the government, which indeed makes it a quasi-governmental institution (i.e. not really private).

[siva_chair]

The problem is the rise of neo-liberal ideology which is bent on destroying the welfare state and egalitarianism.

That's not a problem, that is a solution. Those things are horseshit.

This doesn't change the fact that anything less than a dismantling of capitalism is a loss for a socialist movement,

Which would be self-destructive and terrible unless you want massive starvation, a return to a primarily sustenence based lifestyle, and a stagnation in technology and decline in standard of living, of course.

Remember, it was through capitalism, not collectivism or socialism, that the world experienced a great leap in the general standard of living for everyone (both poor and rich).

[griftadan]

No, it really doesn't. The Fed's monopoly is a government granted privilidge.

The Fed is acts in collusion with the Treasury dept. Not only that, the chairman of the Fed is selected by the government, which indeed makes it a quasi-governmental institution (i.e. not really private).

but this is still an incredibly limited degree of control, and in the spirit of the thread, public control is whats significant if were going to think our banks are nationalized

bank bailouts are much more relevant to the discussion of communism or socialism than the fed imo

[siva_chair]

but this is still an incredibly limited degree of control, and in the spirit of the thread, public control is whats significant if were going to think our banks are nationalized

Well, yes and no. I don't see much difference between the state giving a monopoly priviledge to a particular quasi-government institution and just taking on the role itself. Both suffer from pretty much the same problems as one another, because they might as well be functioning as such.

bank bailouts are much more relevant to the discussion of communism or socialism than the fed imo

Yes, they are. But I think bank bailouts are intricately tied to the above, tbh.

[Iskandar]

SCORE

Workers: X
Bourgeoisie: X+3Stop talking as if people fit into neat little categories. There are a variety of social positions ranging from extremely rich to extremely poor and marginalized and it doesn't always have to do with owning property others work on.
Except a pure capitalist economy's efficiency is > every other one.
Okay, prove it. 'Cause the economies with the highest standards of living are not the most capitalist. Capitalism can generate wealth; it can't distribute it to everyone.

[siva_chair]

Okay, prove it. 'Cause the economies with the highest standards of living are not the most capitalist. Capitalism can generate wealth; it can't distribute it to everyone.

The highest periods of productive growth have come in times of more capitalism, not less.

Remember, your economies that are enjoying the "highest standards of living" had many many years of productive capital accumulation and investment before they swelled with their welfare states. Since those countries expanded their welfarism, their growth and production has slowed. Capitalism raises the standard of living for everyone, poor and rich alike. This is a fact.

[Iskandar]

Did they? A hundred years ago Iceland was the poor man of Europe. Now it's at the top of the Human Development Index. Ditto for Norway. America, a country with three hundred years of economic growth and a supposedly more capitalist economy, has never topped that list.

[siva_chair]

Did they? A hundred years ago Iceland was the poor man of Europe. Now it's at the top of the Human Development Index. Ditto for Norway.

Yeah and notice that they got that way because of their adoption of capitalism and investment. Their large welfarism is a much more recent thing. The fact is that most European countries are experiencing drastically slowing growth rates.

Also on Norway: One of the largest reasons they enjoy the standard of living they do is because they have a low population + that little commodity we call oil.

America, a country with three hundred years of economic growth and a supposedly more capitalist economy, has never topped that list.

It arguably had the highest standard of living in the world during it's period of it's freest economy.

[Iskandar]

Yeah and notice that they got that way because of their adoption of capitalism and investment. Their large welfarism is a much more recent thing. The fact is that most European countries are experiencing drastically slowing growth rates.They got that way by developing and finding ways to spread their newfound wealth to everyone. The welfare state has been around for a comparatively long time considering industrial capitalism is not that old.
It arguably had the highest standard of living in the world during it's period of it's freest economy.When was that? If it was before the last century they wouldn't have had much competition because nobody else was really developed yet.

[siva_chair]

They got that way by developing and finding ways to spread their newfound wealth to everyone. The welfare state has been around for a comparatively long time considering industrial capitalism is not that old.

Evidence please. Once again, I'll remind you that your beloved Scandinavian countries enjoy more economic freedoms in many key areas than the US as well. You need to prove that their high standard of living is a result of the welfare state and not in spite of it.

They got that way by the accumulation of capital and adopting freer markets. The boom in the welfare states of those countries mostly occurred after WWII.

When was that? If it was before the last century they wouldn't have had much competition because nobody else was really developed yet.

Which shows that growth and development came from capitalism. The Industrial Revolution was made possible by capitalism. It marked the period when people went from primarily sustenance based farmers to modernizing the world, and it was this time when the standards of living drastically rose in the areas of those participating in it. It rose for everyone, not just a handful of people.

[Iskandar]

Capitalism did raise the standard of living for everyone - eventually. The wealth generated by industrialization only went to the upper classes. I dunno if you were playing hooky that day in history class when they discussed the Industrial Revolution and how people lived in miserable conditions while the capitalists profited.

But all this is distracting me from my original question which was that you show a "pure capitalist economy" (assuming such a thing is possible) leads to the highest standard of living.

[siva_chair]

Capitalism did raise the standard of living for everyone - eventually. The wealth generated by industrialization only went to the upper classes. I dunno if you were playing hooky that day in history class when they discussed the Industrial Revolution and how people lived in miserable conditions while the capitalists profited.

I don't know if you weren't paying attention when the fact that even the poor were substantially better off during the Industrial Revolution than they were before. Just because capitalists profited does not mean that the poor did not benefit as well. Socialists love to paint this period of time in some sort of a vacuum, and try to make it seem workers were worse off during this time than they were before. Did they live in crappy conditions? Yes, but that doesn't mean it wasn't better than what they lived with before.

Remember, real wealth and wages continued to rise while prices continued to decrease during this period of time.

But all this is distracting me from my original question which was that you show a "pure capitalist economy" (assuming such a thing is possible) leads to the highest standard of living.

Umm because it contributes to better infrastructure, greater technological improvement, lower prices of all goods, and higher wages.

Here is a fun link concerning your Scandinavian economies: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510

[Iskandar]

Was it better? Their entire way of life was uprooted. Wealth isn't the only measure of happiness.
Umm because it contributes to better infrastructure, greater technological improvement, lower prices of all goods, and higher wages.Okay, now show me a "pure" capitalist economy and prove this.

[siva_chair]

Was it better? Their entire way of life was uprooted. Wealth isn't the only measure of happiness.

Yeah that is why employees during this time period took jobs, because their way of life was better before....:rolleyes:

There is a reason why urban areas grew tremendously during this time period: because people were flocking to the cities for the chance to increase wages and wealth.

The quality of life of the urban poor was far greater after the Industrial Revolution than before.

Okay, now show me a "pure" capitalist economy and prove this.

The closest thing is probably the Industrial Revolution. All of those things happened in pretty much an unprecedented manner during this time period. Growth, productivity, and a rising standard of living boomed, all in virtual absence of a welfare state of any kind. Goods continually became cheaper, real wages continually rose, and cost of continually production fell.

Sure, it wasn't 100% "pure" but it provides us with a valuable insight into the way market economies function. The less market distortion there is (read: government interference through regulation, taxes, granted monopolies, etc), the greater the price mechanism can work and generate efficient resource allocation.

[Iskandar]

Growth did boom during the Industrial Revolution but that doesn't mean everyone shared in it equally. (And I mean equally in proportion to their work.) Going from rural poverty to urban poverty wasn't much of an improvement given the sacrifices working people had to make. That's all I mean.

[siva_chair]

Growth did boom during the Industrial Revolution but that doesn't mean everyone shared in it equally. (And I mean equally in proportion to their work.) Going from rural poverty to urban poverty wasn't much of an improvement given the sacrifices working people had to make. That's all I mean.

No, it was a substantial improvement, that is why they pursued it. If it was a sacrifice that wasn't worth the payoff, they wouldn't have flocked to the system in droves.

And of course it wasn't "shared equally." You are levying a Marxist criticism of this instead of looking at historical fact. I know socialists wish they could wave some magic wand and make everyone equally wealthy, but the sad fact is that when socialist policies are pursued, the only thing it tends to make equal is impoverishing everyone.

Growth, productivity, standard of living, real wealth ALL grew for all classes.

Also, this view that the factory system was this dreary, cruel, and dismal thing comes primarily from the Sadler Report, which is so full of **** it is amazing that it was ever taken so seriously. You want to talk about a masterpiece in propaganda. The fact is that the urban poor workers WERE substantially better off under such a factory system than before.

[Iskandar]

The benefits weren't equal in the sense that the working class did not benefit nearly as much as the capitalists relative to the work they put into it.

Also the working and living conditions were brutal by today's standards regardless of whether the Sadler Report is accurate. Whatever arguments you want to make about that, it cannot be denied.

[Sk0rpi0n]

Which shows that growth and development came from capitalism. The Industrial Revolution was made possible by capitalism. It marked the period when people went from primarily sustenance based farmers to modernizing the world, and it was this time when the standards of living drastically rose in the areas of those participating in it. It rose for everyone, not just a handful of people.

The industrial revolution was made possible by technological advancement (new tools), urbanization (expanded infrastructure) and population growth (larger pool of unskilled labor). It took place when mercantilism, feudal obligations and coercive trade relations existed.
You've got it backwards, capitalism was the product of the industrial revolution and not the other way around.

The idea that the standard of living rose for everyone holds some truth, but the quality of life deteriorated for those on the bottom. They came from a giant pool of unskilled labor (and were thus expendable), had to negotiate work terms individually (driving the cost of labor down further) and had to work at some of the most dangerous jobs in the history of civilization. So of course they're real wages increased: they finally had dangerous jobs that offered no security .

[Iskandar]

The idea that the standard of living rose for everyone holds some truth, but the quality of life deteriorated for those on the bottom.That doesn't sound right. Aren't standard of living and quality of life almost interchangeable terms? Or at least there is a very strong correlation.

Though if you're arguing that most people did not see the benefits of industrialization in their time that makes sense.

[Sk0rpi0n]

That doesn't sound right. Aren't standard of living and quality of life almost interchangeable terms? Or at least there is a very strong correlation.

Though if you're arguing that most people did not see the benefits of industrialization in their time that makes sense.

I meant standard of living in the sense of real wages increasing. And yes that can happen with a drop in the quality of your life for the reasons I described. Sorry about the lack of clarity.

[Give me Beer]

It pains me to see siva resurrect 'the great debate' without having at least read the latest literature on it. You're using debunked assumptions. To bring you up to speed, the pessimists currently have the best evidence and the current research points to a 'deteriorating' standard of living for the 'lower classes'. The only thing that might have been said to have risen is not the standard of living but the 'real wages' ( oh yeah, and we can put serious question marks next to this one that even Lindert & Williamson haven't quit explained ;) ), and these don't take in to account various other factors, including the 'cost of living'.

I'm interested in you explaining away the fact that the calory intake of the lower classes was slashed (Soly & Lis) or the fact that the average body weight and height decreased during the period. (Komlos & Quiroga)

Skorpion, is also using outdated concepts. The status of the industrial revolution has been re-evaluated the last 30 years. I like the euro-centricity and the disregard to Jan de Vries that's being displayed.

P.S. The Great Debate went on for 50 years (about the increase or decrease of the standard of living) and there is still no universal consensus, I doubt you guys are going to solve it on here.

[Sk0rpi0n]

It pains me to see siva resurrect 'the great debate' without having at least read the latest literature on it. You're using debunked assumptions. To bring you up to speed, the pessimists currently have the best evidence and the current research points to a 'deteriorating' standard of living for the 'lower classes'. The only thing that might have been said to have risen is not the standard of living but the 'real wages' ( oh yeah, and we can put serious question marks next to this one that even Lindert & Williamson haven't quit explained ;) ), and these don't take in to account various other factors, including the 'cost of living'.

I'm interested in you explaining away the fact that the calory intake of the lower classes was slashed (Soly & Lis) or the fact that the average body weight and height decreased during the period. (Komlos & Quiroga)

Skorpion, is also using outdated concepts. The status of the industrial revolution has been re-evaluated the last 30 years. I like the euro-centricity and the disregard to Jan de Vries that's being displayed.

P.S. The Great Debate went on for 50 years (about the increase or decrease of the standard of living) and there is still no universal consensus, I doubt you guys are going to solve it on here.

I don't think the point is to so much "solve" the debate, but to learn through discussion.

And history and philosophy are always being reevaluated by revisionists who come across "new" evidence and new philosophers who propose new viewpoints. It doesn't make old points of view any less valuable or insightful.

[Give me Beer]

Erm, yes it does make old points less valid because it turns out that there is new evidence that contradicts those assertions.

They can be valuable in the way they helped generate a debate, but to continue to use theories which have been proven out of date is hardly helpful. Unless you have new evidence which points the other way, in which case you should be writing a dissertation, go go PhD ;).

Tell me, does the term 'industrious revolution' ring a bell?

[Sk0rpi0n]

Erm, yes it does make old points less valid because it turns out that there is new evidence that contradicts those assertions.

They can be valuable in the way they helped generate a debate, but to continue to use theories which have been proven out of date is hardly helpful. Unless you have new evidence which points the other way, in which case you should be writing a dissertation, go go PhD ;).[/quote]

Just because a point is the most recent doesn't mean it will remain the most valid. As you know, in academia, points often need less then a year to become invalidated themselves. All I am trying to say is that time has a way of invalidating all arguments or bringing new credibility to old points of view (especially in history).

Tell me, does the term 'industrious revolution' ring a bell?

Yes, but the industrious revolution is still contested by historians. Almost no point in history is universally accepted, by academics or the general population.

[spitfirejunky]

Well, banks wouldn't be lending in this manner if the market weren't so distorted and there weren't heaps of regulations to cause this sort of thing.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/26/siu.bank.failure/index.html?eref=rss_latest

Banking regulators issued repeated so-called "mild" warnings to banks concerned they were amassing large amounts of commercial development loans and lowering lending standards. But Martin says those warnings -- delivered by Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation personnel often on a quarterly or semi-annual basis in their field visits to Silver State -- were ignored.

Anecdotal but most of them knew what was happening.

[siva_chair]

The benefits weren't equal in the sense that the working class did not benefit nearly as much as the capitalists relative to the work they put into it.

So? The capitalists put up the huge amounts of capital that was necessary for the workers to benefit at all. If they had not done so, these workers wouldn't have benefited at all.

Also the working and living conditions were brutal by today's standards regardless of whether the Sadler Report is accurate. Whatever arguments you want to make about that, it cannot be denied.

You are comparing the working standards of today to almost 200 years ago? Please, that is just retarded and you know it.

The industrial revolution was made possible by technological advancement (new tools), urbanization (expanded infrastructure) and population growth (larger pool of unskilled labor). It took place when mercantilism, feudal obligations and coercive trade relations existed.
You've got it backwards, capitalism was the product of the industrial revolution and not the other way around.

No, technological advancement, urbanization, and population growth were the products of capitalism. New technology came about because of capital investment, urbanization came about because of capital investment, and population growth came about because standards of living raised and people started to live longer and above a subsistence level (thanks to the new technology and capital investments).

Capitalism came before the Industrial Revolution.

The idea that the standard of living rose for everyone holds some truth, but the quality of life deteriorated for those on the bottom.

Umm, proof please?

They came from a giant pool of unskilled labor (and were thus expendable), had to negotiate work terms individually (driving the cost of labor down further) and had to work at some of the most dangerous jobs in the history of civilization. So of course they're real wages increased: they finally had dangerous jobs that offered no security .

The Industrial Revolution marked the first encounter of the market with heavy machinery on a whole new scale. It had to take time for both workers and owners to be familiar with the potential dangers and costs (both human and material) of operating these machines. A safe working environment is financially beneficial to owners, since it not only makes workers more productive, but shields the company and its owners from potential lawsuits. And if these relations were so terrible why did the employees consent to them? The employers had no way to force anyone to work against their will (they weren't the government, after all).

[siva_chair]

It pains me to see siva resurrect 'the great debate' without having at least read the latest literature on it. You're using debunked assumptions. To bring you up to speed, the pessimists currently have the best evidence and the current research points to a 'deteriorating' standard of living for the 'lower classes'. The only thing that might have been said to have risen is not the standard of living but the 'real wages' ( oh yeah, and we can put serious question marks next to this one that even Lindert & Williamson haven't quit explained ;) ), and these don't take in to account various other factors, including the 'cost of living'.

Cost of living was lowered, though (as evidence by deflating prices of goods).

People also had a higher life expectancy during this time period, so....

I'm interested in you explaining away the fact that the calory intake of the lower classes was slashed (Soly & Lis) or the fact that the average body weight and height decreased during the period. (Komlos & Quiroga)

This very same thing also happened during the Agrarian Revolution thousands of years before.

Also, the rate of famine, starvation, disease, and death rates were all higher before the Industrial Revolution. Major diseases before 1760 were primarily related to diet. Rickets, scurvy, beriberi, etc were all much more common.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/26/siu.bank.failure/index.html?eref=rss_latest

Anecdotal but most of them knew what was happening.

They also knew very well that interest rates were super low, homes were highly valued (somewhere around 103% I believe), the government had their back against default, etc.

[spitfirejunky]

They also knew very well that interest rates were super low, homes were highly valued (somewhere around 103% I believe), the government had their back against default, etc.

Was simply pointing out that private banks aren't blameless.

[siva_chair]

Was simply pointing out that private banks aren't blameless.

I don't recall where I ever said they were. I simply said the necessary counter balance of fear to their greed was removed from the equation, which gave a huge incentive for them to behave the way they did.

[Sk0rpi0n]

No, technological advancement, urbanization, and population growth were the products of capitalism. New technology came about because of capital investment, urbanization came about because of capital investment, and population growth came about because standards of living raised and people started to live longer and above a subsistence level (thanks to the new technology and capital investments).

Capital investment is not unique to capitalism. Mercantalism and feudalism both used this thinking to train and equip armies, build roads, construct colonies etc. In any event, the technology itself came about because of an array of important inventors, both educated and uneducated (Jethro Tull, Edmund Cartwright, Thomas Newcomen, James Watt) with important ideas. None of them were the beneficiaries of "capital investment" until their ideas had already been established and patented (though Cartwright and Watt were both from priveleged backgrounds with time to spare).

The Industrial Revolution marked the first encounter of the market with heavy machinery on a whole new scale. It had to take time for both workers and owners to be familiar with the potential dangers and costs (both human and material) of operating these machines.

Right. And in the meantime the workforce suffered the experimentation of the industrialists.

A safe working environment is financially beneficial to owners, since it not only makes workers more productive, but shields the company and its owners from potential lawsuits.

Meaningful civil lawsuits? In the 18th and 19th century? Please. These are lagely American inventions.

And if these relations were so terrible why did the employees consent to them? The employers had no way to force anyone to work against their will (they weren't the government, after all).

Employees are still consenting to awful working conditions. Last I checked, humans need to eat to live. Biology provides all the coercion anyboy needs to consent to working in terrible conditions.

Now I propose a question for you: If the conditions were so good and fair, why did labor feel the need to push for collective bargaining rights, safety regulations, shortened work days and higher pay?

[Iskandar]

I don't even know why anyone's arguing this. While the Industrial Revolution was an obvious improvement over an agriculture-based economy, people still lived in abject poverty and their working conditions were poor as hell. Not unlike what's going on in newly industrialized nations.

[siva_chair]

Capital investment is not unique to capitalism. Mercantalism and feudalism both used this thinking to train and equip armies, build roads, construct colonies etc. In any event, the technology itself came about because of an array of important inventors, both educated and uneducated (Jethro Tull, Edmund Cartwright, Thomas Newcomen, James Watt) with important ideas. None of them were the beneficiaries of "capital investment" until their ideas had already been established and patented (though Cartwright and Watt were both from priveleged backgrounds with time to spare).

Capital investment made these inventions possible for large scale production and utilization.


Right. And in the meantime the workforce suffered the experimentation of the industrialists.

No, their lives improved because of the experimentation.

Meaningful civil lawsuits? In the 18th and 19th century? Please. These are lagely American inventions.

Lol tort law is as old, if not older than the US.

Employees are still consenting to awful working conditions. Last I checked, humans need to eat to live. Biology provides all the coercion anyboy needs to consent to working in terrible conditions.

And due to the Industrial Revolution, they could eat more. Famine was much more common before the Industrial Revolution.

Now I propose a question for you: If the conditions were so good and fair, why did labor feel the need to push for collective bargaining rights, safety regulations, shortened work days and higher pay?

Did I say they were good and fair compared to today? No. You keep holding the labor practices of 200 years ago to todays standards. By today's standards, building the Empire State building was incredibly dangerous. You have to compare it to what it was BEFORE, not after.

I don't even know why anyone's arguing this. While the Industrial Revolution was an obvious improvement over an agriculture-based economy, people still lived in abject poverty and their working conditions were poor as hell. Not unlike what's going on in newly industrialized nations.

For ****'s sake how on earth is this a legitimate criticism? Quit comparing it to the working standards of today, please, it's retarded and dishonest.

Sure, people were poor, but they had a significant improvement over what they had before.

[Iskandar]

I didn't say it wasn't an improvement. But there were negatives as well, and the average person did not benefit nearly as much as the industrial capitalists.

[siva_chair]

I didn't say it wasn't an improvement. But there were negatives as well, and the average person did not benefit nearly as much as the industrial capitalists.

And? I'm still failing to see how this takes anything away from the fact that it was a general improvement in the overall standard of living for EVERYONE.

You are going to have to start backing up your egalitarianism with some sort of reasoning if I am going to entertain this line of thinking at all. Redistributing the wealth all equally like a socialist would have crippled the Industrial Revolution and the poor wouldn't have gained at all.

[Aaron]

You don't know that. Not all development costs substantial amounts of money. Quite often the best developments come out of frugal situations.

[siva_chair]

You don't know that. Not all development costs substantial amounts of money. Quite often the best developments come out of frugal situations.

Savings is a central part of capital investment.

Industry isn't built on "everyone being equal in wealth," it is built on those with capital accumulation.

[Iskandar]

That is true enough. You can't redistribute anything that doesn't exist.

[Sk0rpi0n]

Capital investment made these inventions possible for large scale production and utilization.

And like I said, capital investment is not unique to capitalism.

No, their lives improved because of the experimentation.

You and I have differing opinions on what qualifies as improving lives. Increasing worker and infant mortality, along with stunted growth, deterioration of the nuclear family and extreme work hours (increased by an average of 7 hours up to 18 hours a day) for subsistence wages do not qualify as much "improvement" to me.

http://industrialrevolution.sea.ca/impact.html

Lol tort law is as old, if not older than the US.

Yes, but as I said, meaningful recourse through civil suits was not possible. Are you familiar with the famous British option of hiring a champion?

And due to the Industrial Revolution, they could eat more. Famine was much more common before the Industrial Revolution.

No it wasn't. Britain's (Irelands) worst and most memorable famine (the Great Famine) occurred following the agricultural revolution. Capitalism was still no match for crop disease and/or bad weather even if harvesting techniqes improved.

Did I say they were good and fair compared to today? No. You keep holding the labor practices of 200 years ago to todays standards. By today's standards, building the Empire State building was incredibly dangerous. You have to compare it to what it was BEFORE, not after.

You did say that they were good and improving conditions. Did I compare them to today? No I didn't. I asked you the question "If the conditions were so good and fair, why did labor feel the need to push for collective bargaining rights, safety regulations, shortened work days and higher pay?" You've merely misrepresented my argument to dodge the question.

Even if I were to compare it to what it was before, it is worse. The average length of the workday nearly doubled, workplace mortality skyrocketed and wages remained at the subsistence level untill the middle of the 19th century.

[siva_chair]

And like I said, capital investment is not unique to capitalism.


Yes, it pretty much is. At least to the degree that was necessary for the Industrial Revolution.

You and I have differing opinions on what qualifies as improving lives. Increasing worker and infant mortality, along with stunted growth, deterioration of the nuclear family and extreme work hours (increased by an average of 7 hours up to 18 hours a day) for subsistence wages do not qualify as much "improvement" to me.

http://industrialrevolution.sea.ca/impact.html

Umm life expectancy rose and infant mortality decreased in this time period so I don't know what you are talking about.

Sanitation systems were pretty much completely absent before the IR, people died from malnutrition at a much more frequent rate, etc.

Pre-industrial society was very static and often cruel—child labour, dirty living conditions and long working hours were just as prevalent before the Industrial Revolution

During the Industrial Revolution, the life expectancy of children increased dramatically. The percentage of the children born in London who died before the age of five decreased from 74.5% in 1730 - 1749 to 31.8% in 1810 - 1829. Also, there was a significant increase in worker wages during the period 1813-1913

Wikipedia.

Yes, but as I said, meaningful recourse through civil suits was not possible. Are you familiar with the famous British option of hiring a champion?

Are you familiar with the benefits of the expanding middle class? Civil suits would have inevitably become much more realistic with the expansion of the middle class.

No it wasn't. Britain's (Irelands) worst and most memorable famine (the Great Famine) occurred following the agricultural revolution. Capitalism was still no match for crop disease and/or bad weather even if harvesting techniqes improved.

It didn't have the frequency that it did in Pre-industrial times.

You did say that they were good and improving conditions.

They were good and improving compared to what they were before them.

Did I compare them to today? No I didn't.

Yes, you did. You were using today's standards, not pre-industrial standards.

I asked you the question "If the conditions were so good and fair, why did labor feel the need to push for collective bargaining rights, safety regulations, shortened work days and higher pay?" You've merely misrepresented my argument to dodge the question.

Well they probably did that because they were able to organize as such. It concentrated labor into mills, factories and mines, thus facilitated the organization of trade unions.

Trade unions started out of voluntary organizations. They were not the creation of governments.


Even if I were to compare it to what it was before, it is worse.

WRONG WRONG WRONG.

The average length of the workday nearly doubled, workplace mortality skyrocketed and wages remained at the subsistence level untill the middle of the 19th century.

Real wages increased, life expectancy dramatically increased, infant mortality dramatically decreased, the middle class grew to an unprecedented level, wealth distribution became far more equal (you egalitarians ought to love that), famine was a much less frequent occurance, created a larger middle class of professionals such as lawyers and doctors, etc.

[Iskandar]

Trade unions started out of voluntary organizations. They were not the creation of governments.Yes, trade unions were formed by labourers themselves. However much it was an improvement industrialization was enough people must have been dissatisfied with their conditions enough to want to improve them.

Also income distribution was not equal at all in those days, what are you talking about? Going from extremely unequal to slightly less so isn't much of an improvement.

[siva_chair]

Yes, trade unions were formed by labourers themselves. However much it was an improvement industrialization was enough people must have been dissatisfied with their conditions enough to want to improve them.

Like I said, the situations of industrialization allowed people to organize in ways they couldn't before.

Also income distribution was not equal at all in those days, what are you talking about? Going from extremely unequal to slightly less so isn't much of an improvement.

I never said it was equal, but it was far more equal than it was before the industrial revolution.

Before: Approx. 80% of the wealth was in the hands of the top 2% of the population.

After: 30% of the wealth was in the hands of the top 2% (and the 2% is better off with this 30% than they were with the 80%, as wealth greatly multiplied).

[Sk0rpi0n]

Yes, it pretty much is. At least to the degree that was necessary for the Industrial Revolution.

Your whole argument depends on capital investment being unique to capiutalism. You just admitted it isn't. Your premises are thus flawed.

Umm life expectancy rose and infant mortality decreased in this time period so I don't know what you are talking about.

Pre-industrial society was very static and often cruel—child labour, dirty living conditions and long working hours were just as prevalent before the Industrial Revolution

During the Industrial Revolution, the life expectancy of children increased dramatically. The percentage of the children born in London who died before the age of five decreased from 74.5% in 1730 - 1749 to 31.8% in 1810 - 1829. Also, there was a significant increase in worker wages during the period 1813-1913

Since workers, especially women and children, were labouring for up to eighteen hours each day, there was very little family contact, and the only time that one was at home was spent sleeping. People also had to share housing with other families, which further contributed to the breakdown of the family unit. As a result, children received very little education, had stunted growth, and were sickly. They also grew up quite maladjusted, having never been taught how to behave properly (Sadler). The living conditions were indeed horrible; working families often lived in slums with little sanitation, and infant mortality skyrocketed. During the early Industrial Revolution, 50% of infants died before the age of two (Stearns).

Until the publication of the Sadler Report in 1833, the poor social conditions in Britain went largely ignored by the ruling classes. It was commissioned in 1832, and the Sadler committee undertook a great investigation into the various aspects of life for the working classes, hearing testimony from members of the working class. The Sadler Report eventually found evidence of human rights abuse and terrible working conditions, suggesting that reform had to be implemented to avoid general social unrest (Haberman).

It appears we are reading from competing histories about the impact of the Industrial revolution.

Are you familiar with the benefits of the expanding middle class? Civil suits would have inevitably become much more realistic with the expansion of the middle class.

So then you admit they were unrealistic beforehand (closing this argument). You seem to be guilty of comparing them to conditions following the industrial revolution. Hypocrisy :)

Well they probably did that because they were able to organize as such. It concentrated labor into mills, factories and mines, thus facilitated the organization of trade unions.

They did it because it was in their interest (YaY! Adam SMith! Your lover Boy!) not because it was convenient. Obviously they thought that wages were too low, conditions were poor and the system was unfair. The fact that they were gradually able to force governments to introduce new regulations and force companes to pay higher wages and maintain profit and expansion illustrates this point.

Like I said, the situations of industrialization allowed people to organize in ways they couldn't before.

Some groups were organized long before the industrial revolution into craft guilds, the precursor to modern unions. The classic examples are blacksmiths and masons.

[siva_chair]

Your whole argument depends on capital investment being unique to capiutalism. You just admitted it isn't. Your premises are thus flawed.

Do you not read well or something? Did you miss the part where I said capital investment is unique to capitalism to the degree that was necessary to bring about the IR? There is a reason why the Industrial Revolution occurred in capitalist nations first and foremost.

Since workers, especially women and children, were labouring for up to eighteen hours each day, there was very little family contact, and the only time that one was at home was spent sleeping. People also had to share housing with other families, which further contributed to the breakdown of the family unit. As a result, children received very little education, had stunted growth, and were sickly. They also grew up quite maladjusted, having never been taught how to behave properly (Sadler). The living conditions were indeed horrible; working families often lived in slums with little sanitation, and infant mortality skyrocketed. During the early Industrial Revolution, 50% of infants died before the age of two (Stearns).

False. Infant mortality diminished.

Until the publication of the Sadler Report in 1833, the poor social conditions in Britain went largely ignored by the ruling classes. It was commissioned in 1832, and the Sadler committee undertook a great investigation into the various aspects of life for the working classes, hearing testimony from members of the working class. The Sadler Report eventually found evidence of human rights abuse and terrible working conditions, suggesting that reform had to be implemented to avoid general social unrest (Haberman).

It appears we are reading from competing histories about the impact of the Industrial revolution.

The Sadler report is bullpoop. It was one big appeal to emotion and a great piece of political rigging.

Even Engels describes the Report as bullpoop.

"Its report was emphatically partisan, composed by strong enemies of the factory system for party ends. … Sadler permitted himself to be betrayed by his noble enthusiasm into the most distorted and erroneous statements."

So then you admit they were unrealistic beforehand (closing this argument). You seem to be guilty of comparing them to conditions following the industrial revolution. Hypocrisy :)

No, the fact that the middle class expanded was due to the IR. With an expanding middle class, it is very obvious that they would have better access to such legal recourse. This is a fact. Nice try with a strawman though.

They did it because it was in their interest (YaY! Adam SMith! Your lover Boy!) not because it was convenient. Obviously they thought that wages were too low, conditions were poor and the system was unfair. The fact that they were gradually able to force governments to introduce new regulations and force companes to pay higher wages and maintain profit and expansion illustrates this point.

No, they did it because it was much more feasible. Before large scale factory production, do tell: how was labor to organize? What would have been the point? Just because labor was able to unionize, it does not follow that working conditions were worse than before. It simply means they had the practical means to go about doing so.

And completely ignores the fact that wages steadily increased WITHOUT governments enforcing anything (or even strong union participation).

Some groups were organized long before the industrial revolution into craft guilds, the precursor to modern unions. The classic examples are blacksmiths and masons.

Yeah and those were divisions of labor that could organize practically. What is your point?

[Iskandar]

Do you not read well or something? Did you miss the part where I said capital investment is unique to capitalism to the degree that was necessary to bring about the IR? There is a reason why the Industrial Revolution occurred in capitalist nations first and foremost.Certain communist countries were able to industrialize almost overnight with planned economies. Of course the methods by which they did so were force. Just an interesting tidbit. I'll let you two get back to tearing each other's heads off.

[siva_chair]

Certain communist countries were able to industrialize almost overnight with planned economies. Of course the methods by which they did so were force. Just an interesting tidbit. I'll let you two get back to tearing each other's heads off.

Yes by adopting inventions that were made possible by capitalism.

[Iskandar]

Yes by adopting inventions that were made possible by capitalism.It's not really about the technology, it's that they could begin building an industrial economy quickly by directing investment without waiting for entrepreneurs to amass capital.

[siva_chair]

It's not really about the technology, it's that they could begin building an industrial economy quickly by directing investment without waiting for entrepreneurs to amass capital.

They simply robbed the wealth and productivity of everyone and built it on that. Without entrepreneurs and the amassment of capital, the industrial economy wouldn't have even have came to be in the world, and the Soviets wouldn't have even had anything to take cues from.

Notice these communist countries were unsustainable in terms of an industrialized economy and always lacked behind capitalist ones in technology and resource allocation.

[Iskandar]

Yeah I know. Command economies have many failings but industrialization wasn't one of them. At that they outperformed most capitalist economies, even the most liberalized. As I said it was forced, as they couldn't have done it any other way.

[siva_chair]

Yeah I know. Command economies have many failings but industrialization wasn't one of them. At that they outperformed most capitalist economies, even the most liberalized. As I said it was forced, as they couldn't have done it any other way.

They didn't outperform capitalist economies though what are you talking about?

The products were years if not decades behind those of capitalist countries. Not only that they produced huge amounts of waste.

[Iskandar]

I said they did at industrializing quickly. After that they pretty much stagnated.

[siva_chair]

I said they did at industrializing quickly. After that they pretty much stagnated.

Only after the blueprint for what entailed industrialization had already been established elsewhere for a good century or more.

[Iskandar]

They were trying to achieve the same goals as capitalist economies through different methods. In the short term it worked after a fashion but in the long run it proved to be unsustainable. Simple as that.

[siva_chair]

So what is your point. My point has been that industrialization would never have taken place in absence of capitalism. Simple as that. Communism simply rode on the coattails of it. Simple as that.

[Iskandar]

My original point if I recall was that communism was able to achieve industrialization quickly through forced labour. That's all. Just an interesting historical tidbit. I never doubted the ability of capitalism to generate income.

[siva_chair]

Well why on earth did you quote what you did, then? It seemed rather irrelevant to your point if that is what your point was to begin with.

[Virus278]

I agree with siva chair. China's economy started to boom only after they switched to a capitalist system. I've always thought of the graph of the benefits of capitalism to be bell shaped (with time being the x-axis). Capitalism stimulates a weak economy but eventually leads to economic stagnation - or even worse an economic crash - mainly because of the greed and dishonesty it promotes. Marx was right about capitalism being outdated. It's outdated for a strong economy - for our economy.

[Chu]

I'm about 3/4 of the way through Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", in it he draws some parallels with politics.

In Section IX he shows some very interesting similarities between the two systems.

There was a sentence I read in it, which I thought was somewhat relevant to this thread, but I can't seem to find it at the moment.

If memory serves, it was something along the lines of "Before a revolution can begin, it has to be in a crisis state", or something to that affect.

I thought it was rather interesting, especially with the examples he provides (though, obviously more relevant to scientific discovery, I believe to an extent it could apply to political systems).

I don't have much to add to this discussion, it is very interesting though, and I just wanted to throw something new into the mix, to promote discussion again.

[Iskandar]

JFK said that "communism has never come to power in a country that was not disrupted by war or corruption, or both."

[Virus278]

JFK said that "communism has never come to power in a country that was not disrupted by war or corruption, or both."

every powerful country

[siva_chair]

I agree with siva chair. China's economy started to boom only after they switched to a capitalist system. I've always thought of the graph of the benefits of capitalism to be bell shaped (with time being the x-axis). Capitalism stimulates a weak economy but eventually leads to economic stagnation - or even worse an economic crash - mainly because of the greed and dishonesty it promotes. Marx was right about capitalism being outdated. It's outdated for a strong economy - for our economy.

This is incorrect. Notice the economy has been moving more and more towards a socialist model in the last 40-50 years. You don't think that has something to do with economic stagnation and collapse?

Socialism and communism is ultimately unsustainable.

[StreetlightRock]

Heh, it's more of a sine wave with cycles of ups and downs.

[jaredong]

i think what iskandars point was that historically, the later the point a country starts to industrialize, the higher the level of government intervention in driving industrialization has been.

Perhaps this isnt to be viewed as a prescription. Nor i dont think it should be viewed ideologically (captialism vs communism) But the question of what is the role of the state in development in late developers.

The point i think is that, for all its failings, the Soviet Union and China rapidly industrialized from next to nothing, to having productive capabilities approaching the developed countries of the world in the 20th century. From what i gather, some have argued that perhaps state intervention is necessary (to a point) to jump start a countries industrialization to provide a strong economic foundation before it liberalizes its economy. Hence, development shouldnt be seen as "all state or no state" but in stages of varying level of state.

[StreetlightRock]

It's more complicated than 'the state has a role to play' though. You're right when you said it's not simply a prescription - It's the quality of that role that matters more than anything else. And honestly, that role should be nothing more than facilitating a free, transparent and safe trading environment.

[Radiobass81]

I tried reading the whole thread, but people discredit Marx without ever actually reading him. Have you guys even read The Capital (not sure if that's the actual translaton)? The Communist Manifesto is not his most important book, nowhere near.

Also, it's a big mistake to think Marx just had his communist ideals. Marx is pretty much one of (if not the) most important figure in Social Sciences in general (besides psychology).

This forum is off too much to the right. FDR a bad president (this is from another thread)? Meh.

[Radiobass81]

Yes by adopting inventions that were made possible by capitalism.

Which is one of the 'steps' of the Marx communism.

[siva_chair]

I tried reading the whole thread, but people discredit Marx without ever actually reading him. Have you guys even read The Capital (not sure if that's the actual translaton)? The Communist Manifesto is not his most important book, nowhere near.

Also, it's a big mistake to think Marx just had his communist ideals. Marx is pretty much one of (if not the) most important figure in Social Sciences in general (besides psychology).

This forum is off too much to the right. FDR a bad president (this is from another thread)? Meh.

Read them both. They are garbage.

And yes, FDR was a terrible president.

[siva_chair]

Which is one of the 'steps' of the Marx communism.

Yes which it wants to inevitably overthrow and introduce a system that economically stagnates and is counterproductive towards future technological achievement. If the world were to ever become communism, lots of people would starve off and die.

Sounds like an awesome plan to me.....oh wait I mean it sounds like the opposite of awesome.

[Radiobass81]

Yes which it wants to inevitably overthrow and introduce a system that economically stagnates and is counterproductive towards future technological achievement. If the world were to ever become communism, lots of people would starve off and die.

Sounds like an awesome plan to me.....oh wait I mean it sounds like the opposite of awesome.

Counterporductive towards future technological achievement? China? USSR? Cuba?

If the world to become communist, we wouldn't know what would happen. Speculating that everyone will starve off and die is just as stupid as those who speculate poverty would die and rainbows would come off.

And as for your paranoid 'the socialist programs FDR made are bringing the downfall now', that's totally going against, not only mayor opinions from economists, but totally forgeting Reagan's (not sure if I spelled it right) changes away from what FDR made.

[siva_chair]

Counterporductive towards future technological achievement? China? USSR? Cuba?

All well behind in technological achievement.

If the world to become communist, we wouldn't know what would happen. Speculating that everyone will starve off and die is just as stupid as those who speculate poverty would die and rainbows would come off.

No, we can know a priori that this would happen because socialism suffers from calculation problems, along with many other terrible things.

And as for your paranoid 'the socialist programs FDR made are bringing the downfall now', that's totally going against, not only mayor opinions from economists, but totally forgeting Reagan's (not sure if I spelled it right) changes away from what FDR made.

Yes that is why we still have the welfare, social security, medicare/medicaid, etc programs....

Most economists were at a complete loss to describe and predict the recent economic fiasco, as well. Yes, we should definitely keep listening to Keynesians and Neo-mercantilists when it comes to rational economic policy....I mean, it did so well in the 30's, 70's, 90's, and recently!

[Radiobass81]

All well behind in technological achievement.



No, we can know a priori that this would happen because socialism suffers from calculation problems, along with many other terrible things.



Yes that is why we still have the welfare, social security, medicare/medicaid, etc programs....

Most economists were at a complete loss to describe and predict the recent economic fiasco, as well. Yes, we should definitely keep listening to Keynesians and Neo-mercantilists when it comes to rational economic policy....I mean, it did so well in the 30's, 70's, 90's, and recently!

Don't know about China, but Cuba and the USSR are/were definitely not behind technologically. Cuba especially in medicine more than anything (if their actual public systems are a problem, that's another thing), and the USSR, all I really need to mention is Sputnik.

Not all governments. Cuba's problems aren't due to calculation problems, their mayor criticisms are in other areas, Salvador Allende had problems in Chile only because all his reforms he wanted to do them democratically, which made the process slow. China's government, yes, that's totally accurate, besides the fact that the administration is full of it. Same with the USSR. I know nothing of Laos, no comments there. Venezuela and Bolivia have seen MAYOR benefits from their socialism (although Chavez is a jackass and crime rates are high, he's improved most everything else, and Evo's great, he's only hated for being socialist, he really hasn't done anything wrong). Bachelet's government now has seen mayor criticism, well deserved, but really nothing to do with the socialist programs. The USSR, yeah, that is spot on.

Those programs really didn't lead to the economic programs. The interventions is the mayor change, and that is what is being done again, simply because it has to be done again to prevent any more damage. And the actual problem with them is administrating welfare.

Most economists I've read predicted this some time before, although nowhere near to the catastrophic levels they've gotten into. The 70s were a problem, but the 90s were back to no intervention.

[siva_chair]

Don't know about China, but Cuba and the USSR are/were definitely not behind technologically. Cuba especially in medicine more than anything (if their actual public systems are a problem, that's another thing), and the USSR, all I really need to mention is Sputnik.

Do I need to mention the plethora of technological advances that occurred in the US well before they ever came about in the Soviet Union?

Even when it came to satellites, the US's were far better.

Not all governments. Cuba's problems aren't due to calculation problems, their mayor criticisms are in other areas, Salvador Allende had problems in Chile only because all his reforms he wanted to do them democratically, which made the process slow. China's government, yes, that's totally accurate, besides the fact that the administration is full of it. Same with the USSR. I know nothing of Laos, no comments there. Venezuela and Bolivia have seen MAYOR benefits from their socialism (although Chavez is a jackass and crime rates are high, he's improved most everything else, and Evo's great, he's only hated for being socialist, he really hasn't done anything wrong). Bachelet's government now has seen mayor criticism, well deserved, but really nothing to do with the socialist programs. The USSR, yeah, that is spot on.

No, all socialist models suffer from economic calculation problems. A centrally planned economy has no way of calculating because there is not price mechanism for the rational allocation of resources to take place. This is why capitalism is far more efficient than socialist models.

Those programs really didn't lead to the economic programs. The interventions is the mayor change, and that is what is being done again, simply because it has to be done again to prevent any more damage. And the actual problem with them is administrating welfare.

Those are economic programs, as they take wealth from one segment and redistribute it to others. Subsidies are always an economic factor. By redistributing the wealth, the government distorts the market.

Capitalism isn't the problem, it is government intervention into the market that is the problem. That is the source of our economic problems today.

Most economists I've read predicted this some time before, although nowhere near to the catastrophic levels they've gotten into.

No, most economists were not predicting this crisis. Most of them were predicting a period of greater growth, and oh how wrong they were.

For example, Bernanke, in his infinite wisdom, said that there simply was no housing bubble to burst. He was obviously dead wrong, and why people still listen to him I have no idea.

The 70s were a problem, but the 90s were back to no intervention.

False. There was plenty of intervention still in place in the 90's.

Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, CRA (particularly the Clinton-era changes), etc were all in place in the 90's.

The Fed's monetary policies over the last 30 or so years also significantly contributed to this fiasco. To say that there was no intervention is just simply false.

[Radiobass81]

Yes, but the US was pretty much the only thing that was competing with the USSR at the time.

Umm, no. "Capitalism" couldn't calculate this mess. And you might be the ONLY person who thinks that too much intervention is the problem, and disagreeing with you here seems pretty useless. You seem pretty thick.

You're reading rubish news from rubbish economists and thinkers. That might be the reason for the terribly unorthodox analysis of this crisis.

I'll give you there was still intervention, but nowhere near as much as before. And in the last 8 years, intervention was as low as it could have gotten that fast.

[Iskandar]

i think what iskandars point was that historically, the later the point a country starts to industrialize, the higher the level of government intervention in driving industrialization has been.

Perhaps this isnt to be viewed as a prescription. Nor i dont think it should be viewed ideologically (captialism vs communism) But the question of what is the role of the state in development in late developers.In the West, we started off with a fairly laissez-faire system but over time people demanded reforms until we arrived at a more socially oriented model. (Omg socialism.) In the developing world, they have typically tried it the other way with a state-oriented model directing capital investment. With the rise of neoliberalism though that type of closed market has become hard to sustain so developing countries are nowadays expected to toe the IMF/WTO line and throw themselves open to foreign investment.

[siva_chair]

Yes, but the US was pretty much the only thing that was competing with the USSR at the time.

And it was a far superior model.

Umm, no. "Capitalism" couldn't calculate this mess. And you might be the ONLY person who thinks that too much intervention is the problem, and disagreeing with you here seems pretty useless. You seem pretty thick.

Lol capitalism doesn't need to calculate anything because it doesn't require centralized planning. It has the price mechanism, which allows for the rational relocation of resources.

You're reading rubish news from rubbish economists and thinkers. That might be the reason for the terribly unorthodox analysis of this crisis.

ITT people assume lots of things they don't know and try to simply dismiss things out of hand.

I'll give you there was still intervention, but nowhere near as much as before. And in the last 8 years, intervention was as low as it could have gotten that fast.

BS. There was a steady building of regulations piling up throughout the 90's and 2000's.

[Radiobass81]

But, again, ONLY the US was competing.

That's what's gotten into this mess.

That seems fitting, actually :rolleyes:.

And again, focus on the last 8 years when I mean much less intervention.

[siva_chair]

But, again, ONLY the US was competing.

And they were miles ahead of centrally planned economies. They still are.

That's what's gotten into this mess.

No, that is not.

That seems fitting, actually :rolleyes:.

Well instead of just making the bare assertion that I read "rubbish news" from "rubbish economists" (who, by the way, called this crisis years in advance, unlike those beloved orthodox economists), why don't you actually bring something substantial to this discussion?

And again, focus on the last 8 years when I mean much less intervention.

Much less intervention? Name one thing that was deregulated during this time period that led to this crisis?

[Radiobass81]

Okay, here is what I'm trying to get to you in a nutshell: When I say only the US was competing with the USSR, what I'm trying to tell you, which I hoped you had understood, was the fact that the only capitalist country competing with the USSR was the US. If capitalism really is far ahead than communism in regards to technology, more capitalist countries would have been competing alongisde.

And it's funny to hear you say that the news you read had most of the economists "calling the crisis years in advance", when just a few posts ago you said that no one saw it coming, and that they were saying that it was actually going to blossom.

[siva_chair]

Okay, here is what I'm trying to get to you in a nutshell: When I say only the US was competing with the USSR, what I'm trying to tell you, which I hoped you had understood, was the fact that the only capitalist country competing with the USSR was the US. If capitalism really is far ahead than communism in regards to technology, more capitalist countries would have been competing alongisde.

They were. Look at Western Europe compared to Eastern Europe.

And it's funny to hear you say that the news you read had most of the economists "calling the crisis years in advance", when just a few posts ago you said that no one saw it coming, and that they were saying that it was actually going to blossom.

No I said none of the so called orthodox economists did. The Keynesians were saying we had never been better and the Monetarists were projecting good positive growth as well.

[IbanezArtist]

siva_chair, stfu