Politics Capitalism V Socialism, or is it?

[Gus Poyet]

Agree with your intent, but at "worst" it is literally blaming victims for getting murdered. Its a disgusting suggestion. So many Communists, Democrats and Socalists were killed by the Nazi's that it makes what hte Jewish people went through seem tame.

You really think that?

Oh dear.

 

[Mofra]

The access to markets doesn't really differentiate between communism or capitalism though, the ownership of the asset and the way it is managed (and for what purpose, and to whose benefit) is the point of difference between Communism and Capitalism.

The major point of difference is private ownership of property (and some would argue that capitalism is more likely to exist under democratically elected government, although there are many exceptions).

State ownership of public assets occurs in almost every capitalist society, with any private ownership of important public utilities almost certainly under a regulatory regime that offer the state quasi-control of asset management.

 

[The Coup]

The major point of difference is private ownership of property (and some would argue that capitalism is more likely to exist under democratically elected government, although there are many exceptions).

State ownership of public assets occurs in almost every capitalist society, with any private ownership of important public utilities almost certainly under a regulatory regime that offer the state quasi-control of asset management.

Yep we're in agreement then. Communists don't believe in being able to hand down assets to people who didn't earn it. Personal property is fine, private not so.

 

[Mofra]

I'm not arguing the merits of one system or the other, merely what the systems actually are.

My point still stands - the assumption of "capitalism" being a singular system with little variation is incorrect and there are a myriad of systems that fit the capitalist model.
The models that survived the GFC better than most are the ones that recognize that inequality is not a social benefit - another point lost on the pro-austerity Reinhardt-Rogoff disciples.

 

[Lester Burnham]

You really are a pessimistic and terrified person if you think people can't manage their own communities.

Like I said, small communities can. They tend to be isolated, live a simple non-technological lifestyle, are susceptible to the environment and have associated animistic beliefs, and be vulnerable to being wiped out by more advanced civilisations.

 

[The Coup]

Sure they do Lester, sure they do.

 

[Gus Poyet]

You really are a pessimistic and terrified person if you think people can't manage their own communities.

They can't.

The ideal of "community" has long been eroding to be replaced with a nanny state mentality which empowers Governments and bureaucrats to dictate to the people.

 

[The Coup]

I'm not arguing the merits of one system or the other, merely what the systems actually are.

My point still stands - the assumption of "capitalism" being a singular system with little variation is incorrect and there are a myriad of systems that fit the capitalist model.
The models that survived the GFC better than most are the ones that recognize that inequality is not a social benefit - another point lost on the pro-austerity Reinhardt-Rogoff disciples.

Yes but as we both said, the key difference between Communism and Capitalism is private property and that it lets you exploit other people for financial benefit, while not contributing anything productive yourself.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Sure they do Lester, sure they do.

I wouldn't describe you as a socialist or communist. The term Anarcho-primitivist would be more apt.

Anarchy is the order of the day among hunter-gatherers. Indeed, critics will ask why a small face-to-face group needs a government anyway. [...] If this is so we can go further and say that since the egalitarian hunting-gathering society is the oldest type of human society and prevailed for the longest period of time – over thousands of decades – then anarchy must be the oldest and one of the most enduring kinds of polity. Ten thousand years ago everyone was an anarchist.​

Henry Barclay.

Small face-to-face groups can get by without government because they have no need to organise major infrastructure that larger populations depend on and benefit from like roads, rail, electricity, health programs, national and international sport, tax collection, police forces, major science projects etc. What you are advocating is a rejection of civilisation and a return to hunter gatherer existence. It's nuts.

 

[Nankervis brothers]

I wouldn't describe you as a socialist or communist. The term Anarcho-primitivist would be more apt.

Anarchy is the order of the day among hunter-gatherers. Indeed, critics will ask why a small face-to-face group needs a government anyway. [...] If this is so we can go further and say that since the egalitarian hunting-gathering society is the oldest type of human society and prevailed for the longest period of time – over thousands of decades – then anarchy must be the oldest and one of the most enduring kinds of polity. Ten thousand years ago everyone was an anarchist.​

Henry Barclay.

Small face-to-face groups can get by without government because they have no need to organise major infrastructure that larger populations depend on and benefit from like roads, rail, electricity, health programs, national and international sport, tax collection, police forces, major science projects etc. What you are advocating is a rejection of civilisation and a return to hunter gatherer existence. It's nuts.

Sorry to butt in. Not sure I see the 'primitivist' aspect of The Coups position - he is not advancing a 'return to origins' argument (unless I've missed something). It reads more like a version of 20th century Left Communism. So Council Communism, with its direct democracy of the workers councils, or perhaps an anarchist-communist hybrid, like anarcho-syndicalism. Karl Korsch and Antonie Pannekoek are interesting to read along these lines. The latter's attempt to develop a Libertarian Marxism is ambitious, given the historical schism between democratic and libertarian views. His book Lenin as philosopher - a critical examination of the philosophical basis of Leninism maps this position out and is pretty good.

 

[The Coup]

Thanks NB and I just describe myself as Communist because the key to what I promote is getting rid of corporations and private property, and having local decisions made by local people.

But mostly I don't see a need to nail everything down, because I'm not a local person of every community in Australia. I kind of take the opinion is time for anarchists and socialists and genuine libertarians (local focused ones, not the Murdoch ones or Abbott ones or Bernardi ones) just kind of made the deal that:

"Look we can figure the rest out later, but can we least agree its time to smash the banks, government, MIC, PIC, churches etc and piss on the ashes? We can try and be civil about what we do later, or we'll fight it out amongst ourselves and resolve it that way because Anarchists and Socialists aren't afraid of conflict anyway"

I'm not talking about going backwards technologically, I'm just talking about smashing the harmful effects of capitalism and putting more control (and a lot more money) back in the hands of people.

 

[benchwarmer5]

Everyone just needs to stop paying their bills for a while and whole thing would come crashing down

 

[The Coup]

Everyone just needs to stop paying their bills for a while and whole thing would come crashing down

Imagine if every Australian started a self managed super fund tomorrow, then over the next two years just took all the money out and spent it, the ATO and APRA/ASIC etc only find out through yearly audits and tax returns, and it takes them years to figure out... but if the entire workforce just did it all in the same year, i.e. took their retirement savings.... that would * the banks up nice and good.

Would also send a pretty accurate message to the government about what most people under 35 think about the likelihood of them ever getting that money.

EDIT: The beauty of this would be, the banks would know it was happening well in advance of the ATO or APRA being able to do anything about it (has a deadline like a tax return, and it takes sometimes a whole year to properly audit...)

 

[The Coup]

Everyone just needs to stop paying their bills for a while and whole thing would come crashing down

This is why marijuana is illegal. People would not be as bothered by the financial threats of penalties if they had no intention/fear of paying for it anyway.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Sorry to butt in. Not sure I see the 'primitivist' aspect of The Coups position - he is not advancing a 'return to origins' argument (unless I've missed something). It reads more like a version of 20th century Left Communism. So Council Communism, with its direct democracy of the workers councils, or perhaps an anarchist-communist hybrid, like anarcho-syndicalism. Karl Korsch and Antonie Pannekoek are interesting to read along these lines. The latter's attempt to develop a Libertarian Marxism is ambitious, given the historical schism between democratic and libertarian views. His book Lenin as philosopher - a critical examination of the philosophical basis of Leninism maps this position out and is pretty good.

I accept The Coup is not explicitly stating a primitivist position. However, he is talking about something like Council Communism, without a state or government. To maintain and advance the complex technology and infrastructure of a modern society would require the councils (soviets) to meet regularly and cooperate. Perhaps each council would elect members to represents them in an assembly of representatives of local councils (a congress of soviets). The congress of soviets would require rules of operation, need somewhere to meet, require ways to fund the common infrastructure, perhaps have an executive body, methods of enforcing the decisions made etc. Effectively the accumulated member councils are your state and the congress of soviets and/or executive is your government.

There will always be government in the sense people need to govern their lives. But it doesn't have to involve elections and power structures and institutions.

If you reject communities cooperating to that extent, then you are rejecting the technologies and infrastructure of modern society.

 

[The Coup]

Are you saying because scientific progress was made some time after industrialisation, that science didn't exist before industrialisation?

They have done a number on you my friend.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Are you saying because scientific progress was made some time after industrialisation, that science didn't exist before industrialisation?

No.

But Industrial Revolution brought the benefits of science to the masses which massively improved health and standards of living. There were huge advances in technological areas such as agriculture, engineering, manufacturing, mining, transport, steam power then electricity, communication, medicine, chemistry.

The main external factors that facilitated the Industrial Revolution in Britian were - statewide peaceful stability and rule of law, respect of the sanctity of contracts and property, a simple way for people to form joint-stock companies, and a free market.

 

[The Coup]

The Industrial Revolution was the greatest and fastest erosion of working conditions and rights in the history of mankind. It literally created widespread poverty in England.

And yet, with the rise of Communism, factories didn't close and disappear - they just got fairer, safer and more profitable (because more people had money to buy the products).

Most major scientific breakthroughs since then occurred through socialism (i.e. state funding, taxation etc but most importantly NO PROFIT MOTIVE).

You are trying to tie scientific advancement to capitalism, when capitalism historically holds back scientific advancement for profits (look at what happened to the light rail network in the USA for a good example).

Or for a modern one, look what has to happen just in order to try and establish a colony on Mars:

"Mars One hoped to raise six billion dollar to fund the one-way mission by selling TV rights to a reality show about the endeavour."

A reality TV show is required to set up a colony on Mars, because there's no specific profit in it no Capitalist would fund it. The Moon Landing happened because a bunch of Socialists wanted to advance mankind and technology.

There is a huge link between periods of enlightenment following money being poured into those fields simply for the enjoyment, passion and advancement of the human race. There are few if any examples of technological advancement that occurred within a free market.

You equate far too much of humanity with Capitalism and ignore anything that doesn't fit your preconditioned hesitance to look at the issue objectively. Cognitive dissonance.

 

[benchwarmer5]

Coup good post.....have you been reading Noam Chomsky ?

Interesting thread discussion......but Lester you are way off brother ;P

 

[Lester Burnham]

The Industrial Revolution was the greatest and fastest erosion of working conditions and rights in the history of mankind. It literally created widespread poverty in England.

You couldn't be more wrong.

 

[The Coup]

Let me explain to you how complicated things get made LB

How many capitalists does it take to make The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1?

None. It was created intellectually by an author, distributed by workers of a publication system, sold to a film company by a worker, then shot, edited, and produced by workers.

How many capitalists does it take to clear the streets from snow and ice?

None. State and local workers do it.

How many capitalists does it take to cut a record album?

None. It's done by the artist and a huge team of workers, usually underpaid.

How many capitalists does it take to make the new curved HDTV for the holidays?

None. It's made by underpaid workers in China.

How many capitalists does it take to build the latest spaceship?

None. It's built by workers.

How many capitalists does it take to run a Wal*Mart?

None. It's done by workers.

 

[little graham]

You equate far too much of humanity with Capitalism and ignore anything that doesn't fit your preconditioned hesitance to look at the issue objectively. Cognitive dissonance.

I worked in programs where i got to know alot of people in lower socio economic climates. When Costello started handing out thousands for them to breed, meaning staying single and having three kids was better than a well paid job in the government,many many took the carrott.

It was socialists that cleaned up this mess, ended the waste.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Let me explain to you how complicated things get made LB

How many capitalists does it take to make The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1?

None. It was created intellectually by an author, distributed by workers of a publication system, sold to a film company by a worker, then shot, edited, and produced by workers.

You miss the bigger picture, and quite a few steps in the process in how something complicated was made.

The movie was made by a corporation called Lionsgate. The company was formed when a number of investors risked their capital in a venture to finance the production of films in the hope of making a return on their investment. The company struggled for many years with some investors exiting at a significant loss (damn those evil capitalists). After several restructures and further investment the company got its act together enough to acquire the rights to the Hunger Games series and finance the making of high budget movies.

For this particular movie we start with an idea created intellectually by an author, then the author negotiates to sell the rights to the idea. Let's say the copyright is sold for $1 million. This is capital at risk for the studio. Then once the studio acquire the rights to make the movie they need to raise the money to make the movie. The budget for the first Hunger Games movie was $78 million. Mokingjay 1 + 2 cost $250 million. This is all at risk outlay before any money is returned at the box office. Who is the financier in your non capitalist solution? The movie won't get made.

 

[The Coup]

Oh so because baking for profit was involved it got really had and people were scared of going into poverty due to the risk involved.

Well yeah no s**t, that's what I've been saying genius.

 

[Freo2012]

I worked in programs where i got to know alot of people in lower socio economic climates. When Costello started handing out thousands for them to breed, meaning staying single and having three kids was better than a well paid job in the government,many many took the carrott.

It was socialists that cleaned up this mess, ended the waste.

I have worked in Africa for many years, including being on local and regional development committees associated with resource development. One thing that really stands out is the old adage of "teaching a person to fish so they can be self-reliant, rather than being dependent on handouts". Much of western charitable aid to Africa has resulted in the death of localized economies (lol, and its western economics overall in their treatment of their own people) and their reliance on continued handouts. Now they are starting to understand their effects and what self sufficiency and sustainability is about. Too often in the past aid came too late to help many and it consisted of flooding the market, killing off any fledgling economic local supply in the process, making dependency on outsiders.