This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Rolling Stone Resurrects Karl Marx (And No - It Was Not Satire)
Submitted by Pater Tenebrarum of Acting-Man blog,
The Problem of Economic Ignorance
The fact that economic ignorance is widespread is really a big problem in our view. Unfortunately even what is broadly considered the economic mainstream thought is riddled with stuff that we think just doesn't represent good economics. This is not meant to say that there is absolutely nothing worthwhile offered by the so-called mainstream. Often one comes across valuable insights and stimulating ideas. Still, there are a number of very fundamental issues on which various schools of economic thought don't agree – beginning with basic questions of methodology.
Regarding the place economics should have in our lives, Ludwig von Mises once wrote:
“Economics must not be relegated to classrooms and statistical offices and must not be left to esoteric circles. It is the philosophy of human life and action and concerns everybody and everything. It is the pith of civilization and of man's human existence.”
We agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. There is little harm in leaving astronomy to astronomers and quantum physics to experts in theoretical physics. With economics it is different, because even though it is supposed to be wertfrei (value-free) as a science, economics necessarily has a political dimension, since politics is all about the acquisition and distribution of property by political (as opposed to economic) means. In other words, economic policy is the main topic around which politics revolves.
When Mises wrote the above words, he thought of economics as a more or less unified science, in broad agreement on basic concepts. In a way that is still true, but it is less true than it once was. For instance, to briefly come back to the point about methodology, Mises spent a lot of effort on systematizing the economic method and discussing the epistemological problems of economics. However, while doing so, he never doubted for a moment that it was quite clear to all economists that the science had to proceed by means of deductive reasoning and logic. He probably didn't expect that positivism would eventually conquer economics. As an aside, if one looks closely, one soon realizes that even the most committed positivists and econometricians secretly agree that there actually is such a thing as the laws of economics, and that these laws are not necessarily all derived from empirical observation.
Be that as it may, there is definitely a great deal of economic ignorance out there. Partly it is actually furthered by statist propaganda and obfuscation. For instance, the average citizen is not supposed to question the centrally planned monetary system, and neither is he supposed to actually understand how it works (hence what is actually a pretty straightforward operation has become a fairly complex variation of the Three Card Monte, designed to obfuscate the system's inherently fraudulent nature).
How much ignorance there is regularly becomes evident by things such as e.g. the enduring popularity of protectionism (it is almost as though consumers enjoy harming themselves).
Another glaring example is the still widespread idea that socialism – or rather, communism (i.e., full-scale socialism as opposed to its milder 'democratic' version) – would be 'the best possible system of social and economic organization if only it were implemented correctly', or the variant ' … if only human nature were different and we were morally more advanced than we actually are'.
The main problem with this train of thought is that it is actually completely wrong. When confronting supporters of socialism with the total failure and murderous nature of the communist system in the real world, a common retort is that 'this wasn't real socialism'. In other words, if Lenin, Stalin, Mao and their followers had only implemented everything according to the precepts of Karl Marx, then things would have been perfectly fine, and the communists would have erected a king of land of Cockaigne.
However, not only did they in fact follow the precepts laid down by Marx and Engels, but even if e.g. Stalin had been a veritable angel, the system would still have failed. Socialism is literally impossible as Mises has already proved in 1920. In brief: it is a system in which rational economic calculation becomes impossible, because there are no longer prices for capital goods once private property in the means of production is abolished. A system bereft of economic calculation can no longer allocate scarce resources efficiently. It cannot really be called an economy anymore. It a system that is doomed to break down in short order, and the only reason why it survived as long as it did in the former Eastern Bloc was that the COMECON planners were able to observe the price system in the capitalist countries and so could engage in a rudimentary form of economic calculation. Had the whole world become socialistic, the economy and division of labor would have completely collapsed within a few years and people would have been forced to return to a hand-to-mouth existence, barely able to subsist. Life would once again have become 'nasty, brutish and short'.
No, It Was Not Meant to Be a Satire …
In other words, it seems quite important that people really understand why socialism cannot work. After all, bad ideas have a habit of coming back after a while and an example for this has just been delivered via an editorial in the 'Rolling Stone', penned by one Jesse A. Myerson, a former 'Occupy' movement organizer.
At first many people mistakenly thought it was meant to be a satire, but it soon turned out it actually wasn't. On Twitter, Myerson runs the hashtag #FULLCOMMUNISM (anything less than the 'full' version apparently won't do), so there can be no doubt as to his ideological proclivities.
Anyway, in his article, couched in 'hip' language (the word 'blow' or 'blows' is used frequently, as in e.g. 'work blows'), he argues that millennials should make five economic demands, namely:
1. Guaranteed work for everybody, 2. a basic income for everybody (he calls that 'social security', but he actually means that everybody should get a government salary in exchange for – nothing. Being able to fog a mirror is sufficient reason), 3. the expropriation of landowners (it is not 100% clear if he merely argues for a Georgist land tax or full-scale expropriation), 4. the abolition of private property and nationalization of the means of production, and 5. a 'public bank in every state'.
The last demand sounds like he has picked up the ideas of the Greenbackers and associated monetary cranks, who hold that the monetary system could be improved if money printing were left to politicians directly rather than a central bank (for a trenchant critique of Greenbackism, read Gary North, who correctly notes that the ideology is at the root indistinguishable from Hitler's economic program).
So essentially, this leader/hero of the 'Occupy' movement proposes an economic program that is a jumbled mixture of Marxism/Stalinism, Georgism and National Socialism. Whoa!
Luckily not even the readers of Rolling Stone are falling for this stuff, judging from the comments section below the editorial. However, we have once again come across many comments that show that the problem discussed further above continues to persist – i.e., many people still seem convinced that communism would actually work if only it were 'done right'. That this is a fundamental error needs to be pointed out at every opportunity.
Not surprisingly, Myerson has become a target of ridicule all over the media landscape by now. Especially conservative columnists had a field day. However, Myerson of course stands by his nonsense, and attempted to defend it on Twitter and elsewhere. One of the more interesting conversations revolved around the accusation that what he proposed amounted to a defense of the system practiced by the Soviet Union. Since it has clearly failed there, there was really nothing left to discuss. As one might expect, Myerson retorted that of course, the Soviets never implemented his demands. In other words, the leftist trope that the 'communists never really tried communism' was predictably dug up by him. If only they had done so, they would of course have succeeded, so the story goes.
Unfortunately for him, there are a great many fact checkers out and about these days. One of them proved that not only had every single one of his demands been implemented by the Soviets, but they were actually without exception part of the Soviet constitution. On the Drew Musings blog an article entitled “Advocate For #FULLCOMMUNISM Says Soviet Union Did Not Try #FULLCOMMUNISM” has all the details and quotes from the Soviet Union's constitution. As Drew concludes, the only thing that still needs to be mentioned regarding the communists is that
“They did succeed at one thing…killing million upon millions of people in their efforts to remake society and maintain their control. #FULLCOMMUNISM = #MILLIONSDEAD. Always has, always will.”
That is not exactly an unimportant detail. Since the expropriation of private property necessarily involves force, it cannot be implemented without killing and imprisoning people. Once the system is established, it must continue to use force to ensure that the new ruling class won't be challenged and that the system remains in place.
Conclusion:
It is heartening that so many people, including the readership of the generally leftist Rolling Stone magazine, have vehemently disagreed with Myerson and heaped ridicule on his vile editorial. However, keep in mind that as time passes, the ignominious collapse of the communist system will become an ever more distant memory. In fact, that such an article is published at all is already a sign that this is happening. It is also concerning that the idea that communism would be just fine if only implemented correctly continues to be held by so many people. This is a result of widespread economic ignorance. It is more important to challenge the ideas propagated by Myerson on theoretical grounds than by merely citing historical events. Only if it is widely understood by people that socialism is indeed impossible will the danger posed by the Marxist ideology truly be banned.
The fathers of the Marxist ideology, Marx and Engels and two important leaders of the Marxist reality, Lenin and Stalin – briefly resurrected by the 'Rolling Stone'. Let us make sure they are interred again.
»
- 52397 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Karl was just another dumbass who thought he was smart.
I have a hardcover copy of das Kapital and it must be worth some money. Gotta be. Must be some way to make a buck off of a copy of Karl's 'work'.
I am willing to sell it to the highest bidder.
Maybe a book collector would be willing to pay big bucks for a mint condition copy of Karl's nonsense.
Karl didn't know shit from tar and that's why he didn't dare work. Didn't know if he was afoot or horseback.
He fogged a mirror too many times in his miserable life. Mirror Fogger was his occupation.
He could have made something of his miserable life, but he was too busy sitting around talking all sorts of nonsense and then wrote a book about it all.
Socialist, and communist are rather ignorant in the subject of economics. They are quacks with ideology of a utopian dream, but fail miserably to understand how markets work, why it works, where it comes from, how it starts, who is it operated by, and why.
Carl Menger said "Man himself is the beginning, and the end of every economy."
Everything is not equal in value, nor in distribution. When there is scarcity, and unequal distribution of things, people economize, they rank goods one over another, next, or last. If there was no unequality, people wouldn't need to make such decisions. The essence of utopia. Everything competes against each other. Individuals rank, and choose between goods by their own subjective valuations of wants. Goods can be valued equally, because they serve a important function to satisfy a want, and goods can be inequally valuable based on level of satisfaction, and urgency for it. When people make a trade, the trade itself is unequal from the perspective of the traders. Each trader trades for a more urgent want with a lesser want. There is nothing equal here about it. When two trader meet to make a trade, they trade based on price, which each party is willing to settle on.
The reason why communism doesn't work it doesn't have a mechanism for allocating resources efficiently. It does not know how much something costs, because it has no prices. It literally has to make up prices. Sure it can make assumptions, and observe abundance of goods in comparison with each other, but can't determine how much something costs as detailed as prices. How much is health care worth? What's it value? What's it price? Communism at best simply assign prices when prices are really influence from the individual subjective value of many people. Communism rejects the efficiency of trade, because there is no trade. Trade is a spontaneous accounting of supply, and demand. In a market economy, there is general crisis of oversupply of shoes to that of ties, shirts, pants, shoes, etc. There is no oversupply of fresh food to the point of inefficiency. A market economy is spontaneous is managing efficiency, where in communism, you need a bureau of statistics to grasp what is in demand, and how much, nevermind there is no prices to determine costs easily.
Communism reject humanism for that of a machine, or a colony of ants, or bees.
Your description of why communism doesn't work sounds a lot like Amerika today...
::Correction:: In a market economy, there no is general crisis of oversupply of shoes to that of ties, shirts, pants, shoes, etc. ::Fixed::
How much different is communism from - "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"? Whether Republics, democracies, dictatorships, or communists - the government works as long as the leaders and the people look out for the interests of the country as well as themselves. But unfortunately, laziness and greed are part of the human condition. We can be thankful that our Founding Fathers let us prosper by shackling the role of the government for 150 years. Now our leaders pursue personal wealth, and hand out buckets of borrowed money to friends and to people that will help them stay in power. They have suspended everything our Founding Fathers created. Is this really any different than the other forms of government?
Nope.
Different types of governemnt permitt different levels of freedom. That's the only difference, because government, or the state is simply a monopoly that exercises force to restrict freedoms, and to tax the prosperity of the productive economy, the real economy. That's all government is. Nothing more. In a minarchist, or limited government society, or libertarian government, government's role is restrict the freedom to violate private property, such as restricting murder, and punishing for it.
In state run communism, the economy is completely centrally planned, and there is no freedom of the individual with subjective wants to satisfy. He has no control to achieve an ends he chooses. There is a huge difference, if not, you would just as happy in North Korea. Government operates the same way all over the world, that is the state, it's only how much force it exerts that determine how much it controls society, instead of society controlling itself, more specifically individuals.
"How much ignorance there is regularly becomes evident by things such as e.g. the enduring popularity of protectionism (it is almost as though consumers enjoy harming themselves)."
Consumers are also producers. The consumer who works on a farm is going to support protectionism for farm products when it means they would otherwise lose their job, due to competition.
The only wisdom in this article of this article is number of page views and comments it has received. Alas we are all pawns.
"Alas we are all pawns." - Only if you choose to be.
Read, Experiment, Learn, and Do...
The only real wealth anyone has is their knowledge and ability - use them.
Upped ya. I stand corrected.
If you watch Max Keiser from several days ago, you'll note that he has an interview with a proponent of a movement in Europe that calls for 'citizen's guaranteed income' of $15,000 or it could be 15,000 euros. Apparently the initiative is already on Swiss ballot, maybe it even passed.
The reaction of commentator's here is just like that of the Upper Caste in India who upon learning that the Indian Government would set aside some government jobs for the Untouchables Caste went on murderous rampage.
I have no comment about Mr. Myerson position, but, I know that when Karl Marx meets Malthus, economic growth will be zero, yet this is the path that supposedly the most educated elites' shoeshine boys adhere to.
You're probably right. There is no bigger piece of shit nation, India is the worst. It is literally shitty, people defecating in the outdoors. There is something sinister about that culture which shows zero regard for the less well off.
All of this reminds me of Peter Gretener’s ‘The Vanishing of A Species’
The fundamental mistake of the social scientists is their preoccupation with systems. All human systems–political, economic, and religious–have the capacity to function. The fact that none of them does function is not the fault of the systems but rather due to the fact that they almost rely on the same deficient brick–Homo not so sapiens.
it is important to compare the two systems (communism versus capitalism), since many people believe that our current predicament could be alleviated by a change in political philosophy. Toynbee feels that in order to survive, we must at least have a temporary dictatorial system in the West. This contrasts with Lorenz’s view, where he states that a visitor from outer space would find little difference between communist Russia and the democratic West. Many people, though, and among them some outstanding thinkers, seem to agree with Toynbee that the democratic system has led to excesses and misuse freedom of the individual, and that corrective action such as the human Revolution requires establishment of a more authoritarian form of government. We should throw a word of caution into this discussion. Present conditions clearly indicate that the mere establishment of a dictatorial form of government in the West is no guarantee of the elimination of our predicament.
I am afraid that even a cursory assessment of the situation clearly demands that one look for a new solution, and that, of course, is a hell of a lot more difficult. It is far easier to compare existing and past systems, and assess their respective flaws and merits, than to produce something brand-new. This requires originality–a quality suppressed in Homo technicus. Yet our previous record shows that so far nothing has worked.
and a lecture by Bernard Lietaer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfMbYllbN6c
‘Money Systems & Communism vs capitalism’: There are libraries full, there are literally hundreds of thousands of studies of what makes the difference between them. Each of these schools, ideological fronts, has created sub-schools that fight among each other … and produce massive amounts of studies on what’s different between them. However the key thing is, there’s something in common which is never talked about and guess what it is, it is the money system. The only difference between the Soviet system and the capitalist system was that the banks were owned by the government, but they used bank debt money with interest as everybody else, same thing in China. So we have been blind ideologically by what is common between all the schools.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7uJIjSO-a4
They actually show that it is possible to have a monetary system that produces full employment, and price stability, but at the condition that you cross the wire, that the government issues the money … taboo, nobody talks about it. The guys are currently living in The University of Missouri of Kansas city, which is equivalent to what the Soviet system used for I would say, Siberia. You sent people there you to make sure you’d never hear from them again. And you make sure that they can never get a feedback to Obama or anybody else. So it is now possible to have full employment and low inflation? Academically that school has not been challenged. And from what I’ve studied on it, they’re right. But I don’t agree with them for another reason, which I’ll explain to you in a few minutes, which is the systemic nature. What they really do, is change the driver … the government instead of the private sector. The same system. For me that’s still not the solution.
…
Paul Krugman told me personally that I was completely crazy to talk about the money issue. We were both from MIT. We were graduated from the same school. We had the same professors. “Didn’t they tell you never touch the money system, never touch the money system. You can touch everything else, but never touch the money system. You will not be invited in the right places, and you kiss goodbye the Nobel prize or anything else. You’re killing yourself academically.” And the way it’s enforced, is amongst others, this Nobel game. … And it’s payed for by the central bank and it’s decided by the board of the central bank … See the point? Are you starting to see the layers of blindness that we’re creating here? The best lobbies are those who don’t know they’re lobbies. Whenever you talk about money, and I’ve talked in the European Union with some people in the European Union. What did they tell me, “Go and ask the central bank.” Of course you cannot do anything in that domain without asking the central bank. They are the reference. Interestingly enough, I’ve been at the central bank, and let me confess something which I haven’t talked publicly about yet, the reason I left the central bank. It was a conversation I had with the secretary general of the BIS (where I was a delegate for Belgium) And they told me literally. I had written a book on Latin America, back in 1970, announcing the Latin-American debt crisis, for those who remember, old history. It was I believe the only book that actually announced crisis of the Latin American debt. And he said, “Bernard I read your book. What are you doing in a central bank?” And I told him the truth. Interestingly enough, the Belgian central bank never asked me that question, or I’ve would have told them too. I said, “look, I believe that I’ve just written a book on Latin-America saying that this is going to be the first of a series of monetary crashes, because this is a systemic issue, and the most logical place would be in a central bank. So when you offered me the job, I came.” But he said “ Bernard, you have to understand, we exist (the BIS), the central banks exist, the IMF, the World Bank exist, only for one purpose. To keep the system going as it is, not to improve it. It is the lobby for status quo. It was created in the 19th century because the deal the banking system got at the time was the best that they could ever get, so now we’re going to create an institutional framework, that actually freezes that reality for ever. So that’s the last bit. There’s an active lobby that nobody sees as a lobby. … They actually fight with each other, and they actually have disagreements … but there’s one thing they agree on, that’s the status quo of the system. The car is a taboo. That’s the message. … We’ve been trained not to see.
political planning based on economic dogma relies on the assumption that history repeats (or rhymes) and can be used to shape the future for a particular demographic/section of society; the future can be good or bad for everyone else outside that demographic section.
there is no economic theory that has ever existed that benefits all simultaneously. the reason is simple;not everyone has an iq of 100 and iq evolves over time, not everyone gets lucky, or had a shoe size of 7 or wants the same things from life.
it might be a good idea to design economic theories that benefit the largest number of people; that is migrate them from one state to another; this is what central bankers attempt to do - employ a theory to migrate the most number of average people in the economy from being broke to being less broke. the central bank is not elected and uses metrics that it considers to be the definition of average that it thinks benefits the most people. of course, it has no idea of "unintended consequences", neither does it have any perception that there is a natural migration from those metrics that requires no help from anyone, if people are allowed freedom of choice.
the removal of freedom of choice means that poltics fails as a sytem for allowing people to gather together to move the various large demographic clusters from point a to point b, using their own resources.
forms of government that attempt to usurp the resources of others to favour their own agendas are similarly doomed to failure, for another simple reason. the needs of the political groups are not constant. they change, except for one need.
that need is "the free lunch" at the expense of others.
a political (and economic) system that has clear metrics to migrate from point a to point b USING ITS OWN RESOURCES is the only "fair" system I can see. Such a system does not exist, so I follow the dogma of"do the least harm" in anything I do and try to create the matches that go into the match box, rather than just bruning up the matches someone else has put in the box.
Of course, you need to create the right matches, at the right time to suit the right need and be wary of people that invent zippos, and global warming. systems that crete matches where the need "tapers" off are not going to be doing much good to anyone.
just saying
Ask the people of Zimbabwe how they like it decades after a brutal communist dictator destroyed the producer class, confiscated the land, etc.
http://www.voanews.com/content/zimbabwe-imports-corn-to-avert-food-shortage/1827294.html
They once had the some of the best schools, hospitals, etc, on the African continent. Not anymore. Communism is a societal cancer. It consumes the host until the organism dies. Myerson is a young and ignorant ass, and now the whole world knows it.
"after a brutal communist dictator destroyed the producer class"
"Brutal Dictator" cancels out any other ideology.
perfect moral communist utopia bitchez!
Communism is wonderful and there are plenty of options for the communist-minded, especially in Europe. France and Spain have lovely small villages that live according to communist ideals and life there is what life is all about. A central state, that is so 20th century.
$CDN is getting crushed. But all i hear is how awesome it will be for exports. Bullshit. The Canadian Central Bank needs to tighten given that the domestic economy is softening. If the rate of monetary expansion outstrips the country's GDP, prices are going to rise for imports in short order - and this includes prices for inputs! Things are going to get very ugly for Canadians very quickly if the current "this is great for exports" mantra is not abandoned. God damn there is no free lunch! When the hell is the average joe going to figure this out?
I remember when the $CDN was $USD 0.66 (late 90's early 2000's). It was a terrible time for economic growth and prosperity was at best break-even. Paul Martin was finance minister and did a hell of a job reigning in debt and government spending and it was the only measure that kept the Canadian economy from sinking into the currency debasement shitter. The $CDN is tanking because its debt obligations are outstripping anticipated GDP growth rates and by extension tax revenues to service debt. The only thing that will happen by allowing the $CDN to tank even further is further impoverishment of its citizenry through higher prices for everything - everywhere.
Mordechi Levi will set you free
Guaranteed work? Go pick my cotton (or work at McDonalds, Wal-Mart, etc.) and live in my stables and the amount I pay you will be exactly enough to pay for your room and board. Slave.
On your Marx, get set, go!!!
Actually, until the return of facial hair is evident, ture Maxism will not return commrads!!
actually Marx never said communism is the best -ism
Marx simply proved that capitalism is finite because markets are finite and capitalism needs constant expansion in order to survive
when markets get completely conquered by one power center it will have no other way to prop-up the demand but to start giving money away for free - that's the way "communism" ultimately wins over capitalism
Markets don't need constant growth to survive. That's the moronic view of mainstream economnics. Markets are just people acting on the wants. Japan has a declining birthrate. Doesn't mean capitalism needs to grow to survive. Marx greatly misunderstood capitalism as he only saw what was visible on the surface. The fact he refers to it as a system shows his lack of understanding what a market economy is. A shrinking human population simply means a shrinking human population. That's the fallacy of GDP that equates a shrinking GDP as bad, because the population isn't growing, but shrinking. Doesn't mean that standard of living is reduced, or that affluency is reduced, only through processes of government as well as central banking can destroy that. Yes less births means less division of labor in the future, doesn't mean humans are poorer because of less births. There is no clock to beat, or stat to break. Humankind doesn't have the "job" of producing more kids. Humans are rational acting beings. All acts are rational. If they choose to reduce children, or don't have kids, that's rational on their part. You seem to have a statist view of a the world, which is where Marx comes from. A statist does not understand nor takes the time to understand the human nature, and what it is to be human.
If the human population stagnated, and didn't grow, then GDP be stagnant, and not grow either at least to prior times. What matters is not a number such as GDP, or inflation it's the standard of living of humans that exist right now today til the last human dies out. Japan had falling prices for about 2 decades, which is bad according to mainstream economics, but what's wrong with falling prices, and a falling population? Are Japanese going extinct? Well there is still a lot of Japanese around, even if there is less young ones. There is no arbitrary record to break. Aging Japanese are retiring, they are enjoying the fruits of their productivity in years past going touring around the world. Does that mean the low birthrate is going to make retired Japanese poorer? No, not while there is falling prices. A market economy is just society providing for wants in current circumstances to the best of it's ability.
And if that's the case, what is Marx's solution to capitalism needing to grow to survive? Not to grow? LMFAO!. You can see how dumb Marx really was. If the problem is that capitalism needs to grow to survive, what is his solution to this paradox? Nothing. The obvious one is not to grow, so yeah you can see the obvious stupidity with Karl Marx right there. As human population grows, yes jobs need to grow so the newly born humans can trade, and sustain themselves. If human population stops growing, there is no need for other jobs past what the current population needs, or wants. Got it? It's simple logic. It's so junior that really expose's Marx fallacious argument. If human satisfaction is satisfied on all things, or almost all things, how is that the end of capitalism? Capitalism is a not a animal external of people. People are capitalism. Capitalism is life itself. You see how viewing something as a system as if it was a beast on it's own completely misguides you from the purpose of a economy. The purpose of a economy is not growth, or even goods, and services, it's human action. Mises already said all this, so yeah get real man.
It takes real faith to believe in that one. You must have your eyes really closed tight at times eh?
The abolition of capitalism. I thought everyone at least got that part.
Really, so life has only existed for about 300 years and it started in England?
Oh my God. Your in the 1% correct? Capital being people leveraged to the hilt?
It's when statements like that are made by people that are not the ruling elite that you have to accept the game is over.
In Capital Vol I Marx quotes Diderot;
"Let us be rich, or let us appear rich"
This is all it will ever be, appearances and the belief in a religion of selfish capitalism on the basis that the holders of true faith shall receive their worldly goods.
Magic, you give me hope after reading the constant drivel from the Left and from the ignorant. It is refreshing and you get it.
It is interesting to me that virtually all pessimists give up and go left.
Yes, yes...Capitalism is great and communism is evil...except China, they're okay to trade with and use for cheap labour...but USSR? No way...they were the devils and America were the angels who defeated them.
BTW isn't capitalism still ahead on number of people killed to implement it's ideology. Africa alone puts your system ahead doesn't it?
Thanks to pro-capitalist policies, and less communism, China erected a middle class with no minimum wage no less in most of it's economic reform endeavors involving freeing up the market little by little. Capitalism does produce a middle class, doesn't need minimum wage, or government forcing it. You earn your pay based on level of need your ability has. China simply proves that capitalism works better, than the complete Chinese communist system. Sorry to burst you ideological bubble. Facts are facts. Communism will never work better, unless you have a super computer running everything that has telepathy, and can run society according to their human wants. Won't work. Dream on.
No need to apologise, no bubbles have been burst after reading what you had to say. I've heard all of these types of responses before; you're a dreamer, facts prove you wrong, you have a failed ideology all the while I see perfectly well not only the exact counter argument being dismissable upon the same basis but also how manipulated all the facts are that are thrown out in defence of capitalism fail it's own standards of 'truth'.
Nonetheless, I am completely aware that it is utterly pointless discussing Marx and his ideas with people who have never read what he actually said of capitalism, communism and indeed existence itself.
I'm doomed to to be surrounded by a system that doesn't work for the majority of people on the planet whilst millions of the very people stiffed by it continue to shout at anyone else who dares question whether there might be a better way of organising the world.
As Marx said himself "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force". The above is just the parroting of those very ideas in a form of weak criticism of something never examined in detail in the hope that 'if you think like them you'll become like them.'
The last refuge when someone has no good arguments is to resort to name calling and labeling. Instead of listening to this behavior of small minds seeking to influence an apathetic population, instead ask yourself: "who will benefit from what this person is writing or saying?".
If the benefits go to Wall St, then those who live off the labors of others and already have more than they will ever need will benefit.
If the benefits go to Main St, then they will be broadly distributed among the people who actually work for a living.
The last refuge when someone has no good arguments is to resort to name calling and labeling. Instead of listening to this behavior of small minds seeking to influence an apathetic population, instead ask yourself: "who will benefit from what this person is writing or saying?".
If the benefits go to Wall St, then those who live off the labors of others and already have more than they will ever need will benefit.
If the benefits go to Main St, then they will be broadly distributed among the people who actually work for a living.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
If the quote from von Mises in this piece is correct, then that gentleman is even more shallow than I learned from listening to his lectures.
There is, of course, much more to human life than our purely economic relations. To suggest that our economic behavior is the entire human experience is remarkably similar to Marx's view. So, in effect, we have two schools of economic thought, both of which will reduce the human experience to a mere machine.
Applying a paraphrase of Edwin Markum to von Mises would appear apt:
"Bowed by the weight of centuries he leans upon his briefcase and gazes on the crowd. The emptiness of ages in his face, and on his back the burden of debt. Who made him dead to rapture and despair? A mere thing that grieves not and never thinks about anything but money."
Wow, talk about ignorance. People who think that the soviet system under stalin was communist probably believe that the media is liberal, and the "FED" is some type of gov't run entity. And lets throw in the other good joke - fiscally conservative republicans! Republicans haven't balanced a budget since the 1950's people. No really. Calling the soviet union communist is like calling the ES&S vote counting machines accurate. In the USSR, capitalism triumped over communism, and in the US it triumphed over democracy. The main difference being the USSR was state capitalism. The state called all of the shots - where you could live, how many left shoes to produce, where you could travel, etc.. Communism doesn't work with fiat currency. Most people on ZH know that. Communism is what the OG native americans had. Decisions were made by consent of the group. IN a state capitalist setting like Stalin ran, the state decides everything. That's why it can't be exported like democracy. But Ingels was right, democracy always leads to totalitarianism thanks to accumulated wealth. I know a lot of my fellow ZH'ers won't take my word for it but a book called The Great Divergence pretty much explains how democracy was overtaken here by accumulated/inherited wealth.
Communism can not function with a dictator. C'mon poeple. grow the fuck up.
You must have never read the communist manifesto.
You must have never read a book or watched a newscast describing the brutal dictorships ruling communist countries.
You must believe that we can do what has never been done before, institute a purely voluntary communism. no re education or death camps.
You need to get out more.
Fofoa correctly found Marx's error 3 years ago.
Marx got the groups in conflict wrong. It is not the proles and the capitalists. It is the debtors and the savers.
This is probably his most important work and worth the read. It is also the best anti Marxist piece ever.
http://fofoa.blogspot.com/2010/07/debtors-and-savers.html
From wikipedia -
Communism is a social system which has nostate, social classes, or notions of 'property', as well as a political way of thinking and anidea of how to get to such a society. Communism is based on socialism, which means that all things of a social (involving more than one person) nature are put under the social control of the involved persons, usually through state ownership.
Capitalism is an economic system where things (property, for example) are owned by people or an individual, not by a governmentor communities, and where people have tobarter or work for money, so they can buy things they need or want, such as food. Capitalism mostly has a "free market" economy, which means people buy and sell things by their own judgment. In most countries in the world today the economy also has a degree of planning, done by thegovernment or by trade unions, so they are actually called "mixed economies" instead of completely free markets. Some people disagree on whether capitalism is a good idea, or how much of capitalism is a good idea.
I think there is no working example of capitalism everything is degrees of socialism. You are given leeway to feel you have a choice as in red or blue. It is better that you remain content with the way things are.
Generally if something cant be explained simply it is either because it is not a well formed concept or because the speaker has an angenda part of which includes trying to impress you with how difficult the topic is - as in to understand is beyond you and the speaker sounds so smart so maybe you should just accept the premised based on the speaker sounds so educated. However there are mainy highly educated people who remain idiots
Mixed economies can be just as unviable as full state run communist economies. Doesn't matter, just the degree of intervention with the stiffling of profits, and growth. Greece is one example of a economy that has little productivity, and has large government, and low economic freedoms. Capitalism creates the wealth, and socialism simply confiscates the wealth. Over the years, the wealth was created years before starts to be diluted, and consumed away though taxes, and regulations. Socialism does not really concerned it's existance to economic growth, it is concerned with confiscation of wealth, and distributing it. Through government socialism grows, and rarely repeals back, because voters, lobbyist included, and politicians find it viable to use the arm of government force for restricting economic freedoms for the purpose of bribery, cronyism, and extortion. Politicians don't care about growth, they care about extortion. If you are a new kind of business that threatens pre-existing businesses, politicians will stop you in your tracks unless you are popular with consumers. That's the nature of government run by men. If capitalist are greedy, then logically so are people who run the government, which is worse, greedy people who want to satisfy consumers, or greedy politicians who likes to harm consumers? That's why it's very important to be principled in governing, once you allow a little socialism, you opened up a can of worms of even more socialism in the future. These are the problems of Spain, Greece, Venezuela, even Japan, etc. This is where the USA is headed. Lots of taxes, lots of regulations, low productivity and even high inflation
For the record capitalism doesn't need socialism. Capitalism is simply people striving to achieve ends though objective means. Not necessarily their own individual wants, but the wants of others. Capitalism is service to each other. People find ways to persaude consumers to trade with them, with the persuasion of a better living standard. Has nothing to do with socialism, nor is socialism necessary. America in the 1800's had very little government, far more economic freedom, freest from socialism in every way than any country on the planet today, yet had one of the most explosive growths, and increases in living standards in world history. People forget that USA was a laissez faire economy, the more taxes, and regulations grow over the years, the less vibrant the economy becomes, and the USA has shown this trend very well where standard trends of growth decline, slown down. Just because you can't find any "existing example" of a pure capitalist economy doesn't mean they didnt' exist. Capitalism is ancient as mankind itself, it existed way before any coercive socialism ever existed.
Very well said.
So, Tell me, why hasn't Obama appointed Jesse A. Myerson as one of his Czar's/Cabinet members. We are 'Transitioning,' aren't we?
Of the sovereign: Free will, the desire to improve oneself, the desire to take risks, and the right to the fruits that are born of those energies invested cannot be denied.
Well Kudos to Rolling Stone!!!! Now maybe they can get to work resurrecting the hundred of millions killed by his ideas, too.
Milton Friedman was in favor of a couple of these ideas. Negative income tax and also increasing the reliance on property taxes. He was not a commie whacko.
At least Myerson appears to at least recognize that Israel's brutality against the Palestinians doesn't comport with the advertised ethics of Judaism... unless of course, you read the Old Testament, Joshua, Leviticus and so on and get a sense of the Hebrew ethos as to the native "other" as to property they desire. One might be forgiven for thining that Israeli conduct in the West Bank is little more than Judaism free to practice itself.....
"The fact that economic ignorance is widespread is really a big problem in our view."
The fact that so many people who study economics think that it is a science is really a big problem in my view. So, consequently, is the fact that nations defer to a supposed elite amongst them.
This isn't to say that economics is like astrology, but it is to say that treating it as a 'science' is to give it predictive and explanatory power it simply doesn't have.... that faith in it, and I don't care what 'school' is being discussed, is the danger.
I'm willing to bet that, for the most part, if you ask those MIT physics students who ended up on Wall Street - "is economics a science" -almost none of them would say yes without some kind of deep qualification.
Guys like Krugman want to impose their will on society through government policy, and will always allow confirmation bias to build a ramp to conclusions that support his view. But what he is not doing is engaging in falsifiable, empirical verification. But it is, of course, important that it look like his positions are supported by data - but data is worthless if it was obtained in a manner which is not scientific...
Economics as a pseudo science would be fine and good if it wasn't used by governments to make decisions that are superimposed, or destructive of individual or market choices.
A pseudo science may be pragmatically defined, perhaps, as one in which you can always build a road to the policy goal you want by cherry-picking data, or relying on something like the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
Marx was an above average philosopher, but an absolutely terrible psychologist - he lacked any insight at all into what people in power might do to retain that power. To his credit, he is readily readable [compared to say Kant, or Hegel, or even his ideological opposites - Stirner and Marx. Interestingly, he was purportedly influenced by Feuerbach but, in my very humble opinion, did not actually understand him - he just liked the harsh criticism of Christianity.
Which raises a final point - Marx was first and foremost Jewish, i.e. a non-Christian in a German and academic world in which Christianity, however non-dogmatic, was often the backdrop. His whole array of thought must be understood as an iconoclasm on top of which was raised sham-humanistic excuses to topple the existing order {perhaps, to try to be fair, from his perspective understandable}. I have absolutely no doubt that he did not care one bit about the average {Christian} peasant in Europe.
Emotion precedes reason, or symbolic cognition both phylogenetically and psychologically. Marx's Orthodox Judaism motivated his thinking, which was quasi-Hegelian philosophy, and anti-humanist psychology masquerading as an economic humanism. Marx can not be understood alienated from his own ego psychology - his own identity, which was a Talmudic conception of Jewish apartness and supremacism which were frustrated by the Christian-conceptions of the world which dominated philosophy and politics.
Von Mises, of course, like Marx, was also born to a wealthy Jewish family. Nietzche's notion of "resentiment" likely applied to both men's thinking, and furthermore to the thinking of another Libertarian hero, Ayn Rand who showed little concern for other human beings, but was certainly willing {as on her Donahue appearance} to thoughtlessly defend Israel and villify "Arabs" indicating her rationality wasn't above a little identity politics.
~~~~
The mischievous and cruel doctrines of Marx and Hess were zealously adopted by the world’s Jews who saw in it an opportunity to crush the Gentiles once and for all. A Jew named Baruch Levy, in a letter to Karl Marx, stated that Communism was — after all — merely a way to transfer all the wealth of the world into Jewish hands and so fulfill the messianic vision of the treacherous Talmud:
Jewish author Bernard Lazare tells us that Karl Marx was indeed a Talmudist:
In its article on “Messianic Movements”, the Encyclopaedia Judaica writes: “In his letters to Leopold Zunz referred many times to the European revolution of 1848 as ‘the Messiah.’ Even many Jews who left the faith tended to invest secular liberation movements with a messianic glow.”
The Jewish supremacist rabbi, Harry Waton, confessed that not only is Communism Jewish, but that it is simply a mechanism for Jewish world dominion and the subjugation of all non-Jews — a fulfillment of the megalomaniacal messianic vision of the Torah and the Talmud. In his 1939 book, “A Program for The Jews and An Answer To All Anti-Semites: A Program for Humanity”, the racist rabbi wrote:
Peculiar isn’t it that the supposed arch anti-capitalist, Karl Marx, never spoke a negative word about the Jewish banking dynasty, the Rothschilds, the richest of the world’s capitalist financiers, war profiteers and exploiters of the working class. This isn’t so puzzling when you understand that Marx was working for the Rothschilds all along. (See: Red Symphony) Mikael Bakunin, the prominent anarcho-syndicalist thinker and rival of Karl Marx, assailed Jewish control of the World Revolution, blasting Marx and his phony liberation ideology (Marxism) as a Rothschild-backed con for the Jewish financial oligarchy to undermine, loot and pillage the wealth of Gentile nations. Bakunin said,
AN ESSAY ON MARXIAN ECONOMICS by Joan Robinson.
Great post Johnny, +1000, and credit to ZH for attracting and allowing diverse points of view.
very well written and argued...but methinks that you yourself have fallen into dogma that portrays the jewish people as some well organized (via religious zealotry) in pretty much the same way the central bankers think that they are similarly well organized (via monetary economics).
there are far ore non-jewish people around than jewish people. as is usual, the more that people practise bigotry, the more the victims have to stick together and drfit apart from the rest of the planet...thus both religion and monetarism become intrusive and stagnate.
there is no-one to blame but ourselves for central banks and religions..we allow them to influence our lives because we choose to, either passively or actively.
freedom of association and disassociation is a hallmark of an exciting life...provided of course, there is no harm to others.
Thanks for the response. While I'm not above becoming mired in dogma - I'm not at all mired in the dogma of which you speak, and I think you might have fallen into the trap of discounting all evidence because some evidence is bad, or overstated, etc.
Most people are not exceptionally malicious. Those with a lot of power are, and those who resent a prevailing system are.
So you ask - who has power, and who might they resent?
I do appreciate {I think} your point. I don't in fact commit that particular sin. As a practical matter, it is not only difficult but at the end of the day pointless to forever dispense caveats. Here, in fact, it is not that Marx "happened to be" Jewish but arose from a family of Orthodox Jews in 19th century Germany that informs my view of his worldview (I also read a lot of 19th century philosophy back in college and actually quite respected Marx as a thinker - but I can to feel fairly confident he was, at base, absolutely dishonest as to his motivations, and seemed not to actually understand, as I mentioned, some philosophers he name-dropped}.
I simply presume that most ZHers, and anyone monitoring these posts takes for granted that I'm intelligent enough not to indict a whole people based on genetics. 'Worldview' qua such, however, is a different matter, and Orthodox Judaism is not "humanistic" - not even close.
Lastly, I don't care to argue as to whether, as you seem to presuppose, that the more distasteful aspects of Jewish holy texts merely reflect a people, wholly innocent and persecuted. I don't think one can come away from for example, studying Joshua and posit any such thing, and moreover, the "Jews as chosen/distinct" seems to come well before any persecution for being Jewish - indeed those myths of chosenness likely served, in my humble view, to justify what would otherwise be unjustifiable at the dawn of Late Antiquity in a Hellenized world.....
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/chosen-people.html
That is, anti-semitism followed Jewish xenophobia and dual ethical standards following the bloody conquest of Canaan - and not the reverse. Of course, you are free to reject this hypothesis, but I myself can not see how anyone can spend even a small amount of time studying Jewish holy texts and suppose that the dual ethics and moral chauvanism did anything but precede reactions to it.
I think if you peruse Max Blumenthal's book, you'll come closer to my view. It's a view that doesn't apply, for example, to most secular American Jews - but it matters little, practically, if I spend any time discussing these caveats. I speak of those whose worldview is informed by Jewish holy texts, as well as those who are highly ethnocentric. This is a large minority, if we're being honest.
Anyway, I do appreciat the tone, and substance of your reply.
Cheers.
you are welcome...and i am not in the camp that thinks that the origin of the jewish state was not born in bloodshed and the absolute slaugher of entire cities in order to establish their "promised land".
anti-semitism has been around for thousands of years, borne out of a need to actually survive being butchered physically.
there is a similar case for being anti-greek, anti-roman, anti-wiking and anti-british, french and american (if you are a native american or a descendant of slaves).
central bankers are anti-free market as are keynesians, both cut from the same cloth.
i bow to your better knowledge of marx' character...i have a lot of sympathy with the view that economics is a dismal science at best and a form of (painting by numbers) art.
incidentally, i don't have a lot of time for behavioral finance either! there is a lot more to the evolution of life than either money, economics, politics or religion.
I am tired of the Jewish boogeyman. It is really a nice convenient collective dumping ground for a multitude of problems. So many governments over time have used it. I am actually amazed Jews have survived and even prospered.
Jews have their own subculture that makes them exceptionally successful and I actually admire it. You might also notice the number of asian valedictorians, first chair violinists and high SAT scores in society, too. I am sure there is some vast asain conspiracy.
I am absolutely postive there is some conspiracy for blacks in sports, East Indians in convenience stores and hotels and caucasians in...well everything! Caucasians took over the entire damned planet from East to West, North Pole to South whether they were British, Russian, French, etc. Definitely a conspiracy here. They dominate in every single form of commerce except aboriginal art.
I suggest the world needs to watch out for caucasians. As one, myself descending from various warring factions in Europe I must be part of Nietsche's "resentment" class that drove Hayek to the liberty side of the equation.
Stop the racist dumb ass bullshit. What you believe makes the difference. Walter E. Williams is black and a libertarian. Obama is a closet commie. Stalin was a white real deal authoritarian socialist. Solzhenitsyn was his Russian opposite.
Focus on what is in front of your face. Even if you believe the Jewish crap the solution is the same. Disempower government and central planners. That disempowers all your wannabee rulers whether they are Jewish, white, brown, asian, anglo, Kenyan or otherwise. It fixes the problem and disempowers the secret or not so secret conspiracies.
I think one of the arguments from the "communist" side is to see how many millions "capitalists" have murdered and enslaved through proxy? Then of course a "capitalist" would say, no no we haven't reached full capitalism, just a bastardized version.
Sides of the same coin? F'd either way unless you acquiese to the dominant theme in power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_massacre