This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Today's Anti-Capitalists Ignore The Fundamental Problems Of Socialism
Submitted by Jonathan Newman via The Mises Institute,
Anti-market and pro-socialist rhetoric is surging in headlines (see also here, here, and here) and popping up more and more on social media feeds. Much of the time, these opponents of markets can’t tell the difference between state-sponsored organizations like the International Monetary Fund and actual markets. But, that doesn’t matter because the articles and memes are often populist and vaguely worded — intentionally framed in such a way to easily deflect uninformed attacks and honest descriptions of what they are actually saying. In the end, they can all be boiled down to one message: socialism works and is better than capitalism.
While most of it comes from the Left, the Right is not innocent, since the Right appears to be primarily concerned with promoting its own version of populism, which apparently does not involve a defense of markets. “Build bigger walls at the border,” for example, is not a sufficient response to “All profits are evil!”
Instead of stooping to this level or simply resorting to “Read Mises!” (a more fitting response), we must show, yet again, that socialism — even under well-meaning political leaders — is impossible and leads to disastrous consequences.
The Necessity of Profits, Prices, and Entrepreneurs
Socialism is the collective ownership (i.e., a state monopoly) of the means of production. It calls for the abolition of private ownership of factors of production. Wages and profits are two parts of the same pie, and socialism says the profit slice should be zero.
The inherent theoretical problems of socialism all emanate from its definition, and not the particulars of its application. However, the supporters of socialism define “collective,” as no exchange of the factors of production. And without exchange, there can be no prices, and without prices there is no way to measure the costs of production.
In an unhampered market economy, the prices of the factors of production are determined by their aid in producing things that consumers want. They tend to earn their marginal product, and because every laborer has some comparative advantage, there is a slice of pie for everybody.
If technological changes make certain factors more productive, or if education and training makes a laborer more productive, their prices or wages may be bid up to their new, higher marginal product. An entrepreneur would not like to hire or buy any factor at a price that exceeds its marginal product because the entrepreneur would then incur losses.
Entrepreneurial losses are more important than many realize. They aren’t just hits to the entrepreneur’s bottom line. Losses show that on the market, the resources used to produce something were more highly valued than what they were producing. Losses show that wealth has been destroyed.
Profits give the opposite signal. They represent economic growth and wealth creation. A profitable line of production is one in which the stuff that goes into producing some consumer good costs less than what consumers are willing to pay for the consumer good.
As such, profits and losses are more than just important incentives, or cover in a conspiratorial capitalist class system; they are the only way to know that wealth is being created instead of destroyed in any line of production.
Under socialism, there is a single owner that does not bid factors away from some lines of production and toward others. Nobody is able to say, with any shred of certainty, that a particular tool or machine or factory could be used to produce something else in a more effective way. Nobody knows what to produce or how much to produce. It’s economic chaos.
Without Markets, We Can’t Know What or How to Produce
Profits and losses guide and correct entrepreneurs in the process of producing things they expect consumers will demand. Without this information, including the costs of production specifically, entrepreneurs cannot engage in economic calculation, the estimation of the difference between future revenues and the costs of production necessary to gain those future revenues.
Laborers are put to work in areas where they don’t have a comparative advantage. Farmers are sent to factories, and tailors are sent to the mines. Workers are in the wrong lines of production and have the wrong tools. Every morning, the economy looks like Robert Murphy’s capital rearranging gnomes just ransacked it.
The Polish film Brunet Will Call lampooned situations like this throughout the movie, with consumer and capital goods in the most unlikely places. A butcher pulls an automobile’s clutch cable out of his freezer, and gives it to the main character, who pays for it with information on the whereabouts of a double buggy for someone’s newborn twins (at the flower shop, obviously).
So the failure of socialism is not conditional on the culture, time, or place of the victims. Socialism is flawed at its core: the “collective” ownership of the means of production. As such, there is no way to enact a functioning, growth-inducing version of socialism anywhere. In practice, however, the theoretical problems of socialism give way to civil unrest, which is met with state force and results in a death toll higher than any official war ever fought.
Without profit motives to produce, quotas must be put in place. With quotas, even in the cases where workers don’t lie about their production, chaos still reigns. For example, if a nail production quota is based on the number of nails, workers produce a lot of tiny, unusable nails. A nail quota based on weight would encourage workers to produce massive, but still unusable nails — a situation lampooned by this cartoon in Krokodil during the 1960s.
Endless queues stretched across the USSR, filled with people looking for shoes even though shoe production in the USSR exceeded that of the US. The problem was all the shoes were too small, because shoe production was measured by number, with no regard for the sizes or designs consumers demand.
The Wake of Socialism
Some cases are funny; others are not. About seven million people died of starvation in the USSR just in 1932–33 (middle-of-the-road estimate based on manipulated data). The authors of The Black Book of Communism (1999) estimate the deaths of close to 100 million people are attributable to communist and socialist regimes. That’s more than 200 times the number of US deaths in WWII (and a case could be made that their deaths are attributable to socialism, too).
Even today, in Cuba, the average wage is about $20 a month. In North Korea civilians are routinely rounded up by the dozens for public execution for the crime of watching South Korean TV smuggled into the country.
When people are hungry and unhappy, the state cannot survive if the people know others are better off. The state uses propaganda, misinformation, and censorship to make an already captive citizenry even more confused and submissive.
So count me surprised to hear fresh calls for socialism in 2015 — if the strong economic calculation argument and astronomical death toll haven’t turned the Left off of socialism, I don’t know what will. The idea is both bankrupt and deadly in both theory and practice.
»
- 27246 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Ah the von Mises preacher.
What would life be if he weren't here to tell us there is a commie behind every fiat banker.
Well, its true.
The making of "fiat" from debt is the very definition of socialism. You're socializing the devaluation of the currency (everyones labor) aren't you when past labor saved doesn't equal present pricing.
Throw in some statist-cronyism and you have a socialist-crony.
an interesting take.
I view it as the theft of wealth from productive labor by capital.
capitalism per se.
But, and I'm not being glib in this case, I can appreciate your take here.
Your anti-glibness is duly noted (apparently from a dead thread).
In my view, "productive labor" goes toward the betterment of society in general. Theft of labor is more like having some entity (lets just call it government, for example...lol) supposedly in control of its OWN border, coupled with domestic downward spiraling or stagnant service sector wages and flinging the border open to those who will work for much MUCH less.
Anyone(s) come to mind? Seattle is a classic example ;-)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-28/todays-anti-capitalists-ignore-...
Capital (or Kapital) is a Marxist Strawman. The real culprit is capital destruction through tax code and currency debasement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFZ8DwfV9lE May the journey define you.
Ah yes, socialism is always a disaster and always fails. Say, why not tell that to the people of Norway, Finland, Sweden and Denmark, and then ask them if they would like to abandon their awful socialism for good ol' American-style free enterprise? How about we throw in a free ass-raping by Goldman-Morgan to sweeten the deal?
Oh, right, I forgot, we already did. Those Nordic ingrates just don't appreciate the work that goes into setting up a really good Muppet slaughter. There's all those regulators to buy off, backroom deals to be made with fellow financiers, counter-paper to write as you set up the Muppets to be jammed into the shredder, details details details...
too bad they aren't socialist states... we've been through this already...
+1, the european Nordic countries have, if at all, a "socialism" based on spending from the state budget. which is quantifiable, btw
and even if you do go into the "how much", you'll see that they retrenched it to something more affordable
How do the Nords pay for the socialism. They have a strong business culture that can support the taxation. When other countries were making wars and colonies, with the exception of the dutch , they were making business. also, in most cases the socialism is decentralized. Most of the money is transferred back to the myriad small communities. In many communities, the business of theat community is mixed up with the government.
Harsh climate also helped directed the evolution of culture conducive to forward thinking and accumulation of savings.
why are the socialists so racist? They only talk about blond blue eyed socialism?
Capitalism, by and large, means freedom for rich people
"Employees produce more value per hour than they are paid per hour. That surplus amount of value, once converted from commodity to money (through the sale), is profit, and goes to the capitalist. The same goes for services.
Thus, quite literally, the entire history of capitalism is built on the concept of the capitalist getting more than what he pays for."
Without profit there is no "employee".
Unless of course, they are an "employee" of the state and we all know how that always turns out. Or do you ascribe to the theory that the President should make as much as a garbage man?
No pun intended ;-)
In Obozos case there is a good argument for exactly that, but in his case a wage reduction.
He should pay us for allowing him to work.
I wonder why my not-for-the-profit credit union still has bank tellers.
I've wondered the same about the Clinton Foundation and all the rest.
Sans tellers, of course...lol.
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/careers/employee-benefits
...they prolly all just enjoy workin for Faaarrreeeee!, don't you? ;-)
WTF? What are those malevolent youngsters doing? Sending our gmo shit food like Fruit Loops to some poor unsuspecting third world country! So the Clinton foundation is really a front for NWO terrorism. Look out ISIS, were gunning for you next!
Miffed;-)
Aw, they're just keeping Granny Clinton in the lifestyle she's become accustomed to, the poor deluded dears...
"Just hours after Hillary Clinton unveiled her presidential campaign's push to solve global warming through an aggressive carbon-cutting plan, she sauntered up the steps of a 19-seat private jet in Des Moines, Iowa.
The aircraft, a Dassault model Falcon 900B, burns 347 gallons of fuel per hour. And like all Dassault business jets, Hillary's ride was made in France.
The Trump-esque transportation costs $5,850 per hour to rent, according to the website of Executive Fliteways, the company that owns it.
And she has used the same plane before, including on at least one trip for speeches that brought her $500,000 in fees."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3176630/Video-shows-Hillary-Clin...
Wait a minute, Dassault is a French jet isn't it? ;-)
They are so transparent aren't they nmewn? Of course, one must be willing to look and the squirrels are so easily distracting. I for one am not so fooled but minorities such as you, I and others here are just discarded... for now. ;-). May they continue in their complacency.
I face surgery tomorrow and will be drugged up for the next few days. May I wish you a happy thirtieth while I am coherent and hopefully I will remain lucid while on Percocet. If not, I will take relief in eventual archiving.
Miffed;-)
Codeine is better than Alice B Toklas is better than aspirin is better than acetominophen is just like percocet, except that it ruins your kidneys.
Good luck with that.
You're probably not awake yet but nothing serious I trust?
No, I'm ok. It is a fix of the surgery I had a few years ago when I did what a Dr told me not to do. He saved my life but it was messy. I have learned not to be as stubborn and impetuous. Well, a little.;-)
Home now with drain lines and in pain, but manageable. My neighbor is a nurse and is taking care of me. I've been saving for years to have this reconstructive surgery. Insurance will not cover it because I am not disabled so it is completely private pay. Funny, I'd rather have it that way, though it was not cheap. However, it would be close to a 10x doing this conventionally in a hospital setting. Everything is all inclusive including after care for a year.
I realize not all surgeries can be done in this manner but the bloated costs due to government regulation and insurance game playing is staggering. A friend of mine had a motorcycle accident on a highway near me. Quite serious and he was in the hospital for three weeks and is very lucky to be alive. His bill? $850K. He did have top notch care and trauma is one area our country still shines. I wonder how long that will last when Obamacare fully has us in the Socialistic choke hold. I get to watch it all unfold. How enjoyable. One of the reasons I decided to do this now because I'm not sure what the future will bring. A Yellen wet dream. Ok, the meds are showing. ;-)
I went into this field because I genuinely wanted to help people and was fascinated with the microbiological sciences. I am sad to say in so many ways I have regretted my decision watching healthcare be slowly destroyed over 28 years. Many of us feel the same but there are just too many fronts in this war.
I grow weary of all rapacious seagulls tearing apart a bag of potato chips. " Mine! Mine! Mine!" Maybe they will eat each other when all are gone.
Miffed;-)
Doesn't sound to me like the meds are working at all, that's my girl ;-)
I'm glad for you Miffed, sounds like its been one of those things in the "Not Looking Forward To It But Gotta Do It" bucket list, so now plow through it and mark it off.
Had sorta the same thing goin on with my back a few years ago (though not as dire as yours when yours happened). I worked & played outdoors when I was young, basically put my body through all hells imaginable and it showed later in my spine, herniated disc. I had a small surgery to remove some "free floating bone" (lol) which almost came off without a hitch until he went inside and I had waited too long, one of the nerves had grown into bone instead of passing through the opening in the spinal column requiring a little more effort on both our parts...I highly recommend the Dilaudid (which I have always loved, even recreationaly up until constipation sets in...but that's a story in itself...lol).
Anyway's on mine, I opted to not do the full monte on the disc and took the suggestion of a steroid shot which was only supposed to last about six months, it's been a couple years...knock on wood.
You tell Mr.Miffed (and your neighbor) the boyz of ZH have your back, you deserve the royalty treatment for a month or so ;-)
Thanks nmewn. But after a month, no more free pass! I need my obligatory fight for reentry to Fight Club. ;-)
Yeah, I know back issues. Training Stallions and getting thrown numerous times has taken its toll on my back as well. I will never forget the WTF look my chiropractor gave me when he looked at my first X-ray, my vertebrae all out of alignment. He couldn't believe I was able to do as much as I could do. Over the years, he have got them much straighter and yoga keeps me limber and functional but there is a limit to what I can do. I think being a determined stubborn a-hole at times has served me well. Ok, the emphasis on " at times" is a strong one as I gaze at blood filling my lines. Sometimes I don't know if Mr Miffed should be crowned a saint or fool for staying with me. He and Mrs Nmewn probably could have an interesting conversation, ;-)
I am so glad you haven't had the disc surgery. Sometimes they don't have good outcomes and its eminently preferable to get by with a shot. You sound like you definitely got your money's worth.
I don't think I like Percocet. Morphine makes me think I can take on the world. He drugged me up well last time but I ruptured the sutures doing too much which is why I am here. I think he wants me to feel a little bit more pain this time. Grrrr. For one who likes to test the limits, I'm squirming a bit. Funny how God always gives us the lessons we hate the most. Perhaps old age will teach me.
Thanks for the kind response. It's good to have a like minded friend in moronic world we find ourselves. Stay strong, keep shining the light of truth and smack down the trolls. This site could use a little housekeeping from one of the Great Masters. I will enjoy the show, as always.
Miffed;-)
"He and Mrs Nmewn probably could have an interesting conversation..."
lol...a conversation filled with "And then the dumbass..." and eye rolls about me (or you) is not one "the object of" the conversation can fully participate in, we had our reasons for doing some really dangerous shit at the time, all they see is the result, not the intent ;-)
On the pain killers...I only found one I can't tolerate, Codeine for some reason (losing end of a knife fight leading to a LOT of stitching...insert eye roll here...lol) makes me violently ill to the point of the dry heaves. And when I need them (pain killers) most it seems I cut back on them because they are masking what my body is going through, subconsciously I guess I want to know what is really happening, the level of pain and can I handle it without them.
Or it could be I don't want to get addicted, hard to say I guess cuz I do love Dilaudid...lol.
On yoga, Mrs.N does yoga too, every morning, she informs me it helps her physically and mentally.
And veteran ZH clubbers like yourself don't need to fight upon re-entering, unless they really want to ;-)
Take care and I'll seeya round.
N
My dearest nmewn. You are damn lucky to be the survivor of a knife fight. After 7 years in trauma, I learned they were the deadliest. Far worse than guns. They rule the day in close contact and I don't care what gun they are up against. Living in a military town I've often seen the scenario of "Marine with knife vs arrogant confident asshole with gun." And I don't have to tell you the result. I'd unload my full mag in a guy coming at me with a knife at any distance 'cuz my life would be quickly over if he got to arm's length. Of course in Cali we have a 10 round magazine limit and the police for my protection. Morons. I guess it's easier to toss a bloody body in a bag then fighting to save a live one.
Yeah, we're a couple of dumbasses but our intentions are good. Why should we take the blame when things go awry? Better than sitting on ones butt, complaining about things. Besides, just think of all the endless entertainments we provide others! ;-)
I see your anonymous downvoter has made an appearance. What a pathetic whimp. Grow a pair you loser.
Miffed;-)
It was a small scalpel like instrument, didn't even see it until I looked down and my shirt was covered in blood, I thought I was having a fist fight and winning!...lol...that's how it goes sometimes in the street but he missed my jugular by a quarter inch so he wasn't THAT good but just deceptive enough obviously, a word to the wise.
That's when I knew Mrs.N was the one for me, just rolled her eyes (a lot...lol) called me a dumbass, bathed me, fed me, and pulled my stitches (on more than one occasion) when it was time.
Yeah my junker-troll...has no life and has never lived one ;-)
Yeah, we are damn lucky to have our mates. Mine is cleaning bloody drain lines tonight. Gosh sweety you sure look like hell! Farmer boys aren't wimps and they tend to tell it like it is. Of course, he's braver now my wings are temporarily clipped and he's enjoying my rare containment. Funny how the eye rolling exasperated looks have a mischievous twinkle in the eyes. I don't think I'll be traded in for a calm predictable Stepford Wife. Our partners will never call us boring.
Take care and do stay away from sharp implements!
Miffed;-)
Dassault and Battery?
Is that a serious point? Not for profit does not mean not for revenue. Additional bank tellers is cost that abosrbs what would be profit. Ever wonder how non-profits are run by execs making $1 million per year?
"Employees produce more value per hour than they are paid per hour. That surplus amount of value, once converted from commodity to money (through the sale), is profit, and goes to the capitalist."
And if the capitalist you speak of did not earn a profit from his investment, then where would the investment come from to create new businesses? Not from the capitalist for sure. Why would he wish to risk his investment to create a new business if there was no reward?
Perhaps you think it would come from The Socialist State? Well, state investment has a very long history of failure and always ends in distaster.
Your analogy lacks one vital factor: if not investment, new jobs, wealth creation thru capitalism, then how?
Just print the money to fund jobs. There is no need for the Capitalist's monopoly on money.
Ah yes of course. Why didn't I think of that.
To see the consequences of printing money to fund jobs and pay the bills, see Germany 1930s and Latin America 70s and 80s.
You don't need "money" if the object is forced labor from a job.
But you already knew that ;-)
Why not print the money for everyone and everything? You get the same result with socialsim. No motivation, no innovation, no risk, no reward except to those in power who take from those who have no incentive. But then nothing is produced except in desperation and you knew that too.
Print money to fund jobs, in a similar manner to startups, then combine with profit sharing. It really is that simple.
Then take back the money that accumulated at the hands of the super rich, and cancel them. Rinse and repeat for prosperity.
How about if all money earned "legally" stays with the one who earned it?
Or...you can go full retard authortarian-state commie.
Wrap your mind around this.
If the super rich person has a pile of money, that means that she hasn't used it to consume stuff. If she just left the money in a mattress there would be more stuff for the rest of us.
If she invested it, there would be more tools for production.
If she put it in the bank, it would be gone in an instant, wasted and consumed by the bankers malinvestment.
the bankers, immunized from any accountability by the legal tender laws, the bank charter, the FDIC insurance are the problem. The rich, not so much.
The bankers have run the show since 1862, when the National Banking system was created by law, and Uncle sam forced to public to accept bank notes with no accountability for the issuing bank.
Learn about the suffolk Bank.
I don't understand why this blog post and discussion even exist in the first place.
North Korea. Venezuela. Argentina. USSR. USSR's satellites.
Q.E.D.
Good question. Maybe it's because there are a few socialist trolls around these parts who can't kick the habit of believing the myth that socialism is the answer. There are also people who are so disgusted and disillusioned these days with what is still described as "capitalism" when in fact it's nothing of the sort; it's actually corporatism, a very different animal, that they too are looking at socialism as the answer. It isn't. The solution to today's crises is to exterminate corporatism and get back to free markets.
Is there any doubt that the lobbyists and their backers are winning? They may not have many votes, but they do have big check books. When things become law that the majority of people oppose it is a sure sign of lobbyists buying politicians. The most interesting aspect is when the politicians pretend to care what the people think and then vote however the lobbyists want them to anyway. Why do big corporations give money to both political parties? The people for whom an issue is most important or profitable are willing to spend time, money and effort influencing politicians and bureacrats. The people who do not stand to profit or for whom the issue is less important just grumble.
You can lead a commie to truth but you cannot make him think.
High time to embrace cooperativism on a national scale.
m.
In North Korea civilians are routinely rounded up by the dozens for public execution for the crime of watching South Korean TV smuggled into the country.
Things every Western citizen should know, but doesn't.
Socialism is not only North Korea. There are human rights violations in the capitalist counterpart too.
Thats why no one knows about all those murders in N. Korea. If you watch a video of it or talk about it the powers that be round you up and kill you
that's the way they force socialism on the populace. Without force they would revolt.
"In North Korea civilians are routinely rounded up by the dozens for public execution for the crime of watching South Korean TV smuggled into the country.
Things every Western citizen should know, but doesn't."
In the USA hundreds of civilians are routinely publicly executed on our streets every year for the crime of committing some form of traffic offense.
Things every Western citizen should know, but doesn't.
no, they aren't. executions in North Korea are really executions, up to the execution by flak fire for the uncle of the dictator
So count me surprised to hear fresh calls for socialism in 2015 — if the strong economic calculation argument and astronomical death toll haven’t turned the Left off of socialism, I don’t know what will. The idea is both bankrupt and deadly in both theory and practice.
The motherfuckers will be saying "we just haven't perfected it yet" a thousand years after I'm dead.
""we just haven't perfected it yet""
Right on. It reminds me of the words of Mutti who is on record saying more than once in the face of the ongoing EU disaster:
"We need MOAR Europe, not less".
God forbid.
The mf'ers who preach it know it won't work but use it to control. The mf'ers who support it are too ignorant to understand their wishes granted today lead to devestation tomorrow.
Reminds me of an outrageously friend in grad school. He told me the first thing he was going to do once he went back to his home country was start the next big MLM.
"You're going to ruin your reputation and no one will do business with you!"
"Who cares? I'll have made millions by then!"
I still have difficulty accepting that he said that with a straight face. Genuine psychopath, that one.
The basic idea throughout history is that there are men who want to be a god.
The Pharaohs and Roman Emperors literally set themselves up as such. The medieval kings used "divine right" to say they were the embodiment of the will of God (the next best thing). We call it enlightenment and socialism now, but the idea is still the same; a pantheon of men who think they can 'make the world better' by wielding omnipotence over it.
5,000 years and the scam is still the same. It's no surprise that when you actually pick up and read the Bible, a theme repeated throughout is one of the authorities consistently pushing out truth to prop up their particular game. In church history, note that the Church that opposed Galileo also opposed Martin Luther; in reality, they were the universities of their time, and just as much the ideological tool of the State then as now.
Capitalism v socialism misses the point that humans cannot expand indefinitely--or even for another generation.
Ain't that an understatement. The mainstreams of both are what I call productivism cults, with historical Marxism (as actually practiced) deifying labor and industry - production became an end in itself, and the meaning of all human life. Capitalism has been a little less eager to deify commerce and industry, but not much.
They don't ignore infinite growth, they demand it above all else and refuse absolutely to question it.
While free-ish (if not completely free) markets are obviously quite good at allocating resources, the definition of optimality of allocation is arbitrary, and has come to mean ... maximum consumption and waste. A wiser capitalism would be about, you know, actually husbanding, preserving, and making the very best use of one's finite capital, especially natural capital, as in the earth itself, rather than figuring out new ways to destroy it for nothing.
Again, there are plenty of fringe variants of socialism and communism, and a handful of capitalism, which are not productivist, but they are irrelevant historically.
America could have social programs like medicaid and care, cheap or free school, even safety nets like food stamps, if they are not a way of life, and that would start by STOPPING immigration. But the point of immigration is to destroy the social fabric of America and the middle class.
The point of immigration is cheap labor.
...aaaand cheap votes.
Your wrong IMHO, .gov insurance (medicaid) is a scam. Usually you get what you pay for (free school) just look at the retards graduating public school
there is no such thing as capitalism, there is only crony fascism
there is no market, there is only the fed.
Nowadays that is pretty true. Question is that there used to be, so when did the change occur? Was it overnight or did it happen step-by-step without people spotting it?
Too bad there are only 2 methods of organizing an economy.
Hopefully the species that supplants the human will be a touch more imaginative.
Fuck off - BUILDER BIGGER AND HIGHER AND LETHAL WALLS AT THE BORDER and then we can talk about the other issues!
right now "the market" is signaling that ceos should loot the company and take enormous bonuses while everyone else ain't worth jack shit. oh and they write all the laws to benefit themselves. fuck it, let it all burn.
Burn it, agreed.
But before we do, lets shove some socialists inside it ;-)
my desire is that the socialists eat the fascists and end up with a terrible tummy ache.
Awww, thats cuz you know a capitalist will charge them for the cure.
///////
Wut, some socialist thinks wisdom is Faaarrreeee!?...lol...figgers.
Unfortunately people who promote welfare for all will need to live under boot of central planning for an extended period until they understand their foly. No one believes that the U.S. could possibly make the same mistake as allowing the Bolsheviks to run amoke but they fail to understand that the same evil family that turned such a resource rich country with deep religious roots as Russia into a disfunctional goat rope for 60+ years are the same family that will reap rape and pillage their way through America. We never learn.
It's unlikely that anything will work at this scale. We have deviated too far from the way humans evolved. Humans survived and dominated for a reason, but it's not because of the way things are, it's because of the way things were.
I am starting the think that the Native Americans had it right. They did some hunting, fishing, cooking, making clothes, tools and such, but a huge portion of their time was spent hanging out with family and friends exploring their spirituality etc. "Work" which consisted of hunting and fishing or arts and crafts couldn't have been all that bad. Working for anyone sucks. I don't even like working for myself because I'm an asshole too.
If you are over about 30 years of age, you might want to reconsider "aboriginal nomad" as a career choice.
The comment that you quoted, “crony capitalism,” and so on – what’s capitalism supposed to be? Yeah, it’s crony capitalism. That’s capitalism, you do things for your friends, your associates, they do things for you, you try to influence the political system, obviously. You can read about this in Adam Smith. If people read Adam Smith instead of just worshipping him, they could learn a lot about how economies work. So, for example, he’s concerned mostly with England, and he pointed out that in England, and I’m virtually quoting, he said the merchants and manufacturers are the principal architects of government policy and they make sure their own interests are well cared for, however grievous the effects on others, including the people of England.
Yes, it’s their business. What else should they do? It’s like when people talk about greedy capitalists, that’s redundant. You have to be a greedy capitalist or you’re out of business. In fact, it’s a legal requirement that you be a greedy capitalist and that you don’t pay attention to what happens to anyone else. You know, it’s not just Ayn Rand, that’s the law. So, these complaints don’t make any sense.
— Noam Chomsky
We are already in socialism. Wake up people! It's time to reinstate capitalism.
"The worker exists as a worker only when he exists for himself as capital…The existence of capital is his existence, his life...The understandings of the greater part of men, are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations...has no occasion to exert his understanding.. He generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become."
— Adam Smith quoted by Marx - Capital vol 1
Alles muss anders sein!
Sometimes it seems that everything goes down the crapper when it gets big. Communities full of small to mid-sized family businesses and farms work out great. The second the big monopolies arrive and are not torn apart it's over. Small businesses also can maneuver and recover more quickly than these big lumbering monsters in the event of crisis.
You can see the effect of monopoly everywhere. Small farms produce good food - big ag produces garbage, small companies innovate - big companies stifle, small gun dealers arm hunters and individuals - big arms dealers destroy the world. Banks, medical care, population density etc
Newman ignores the fundamental fact that all ion, the average bear pays about as much and maybe more in taxes than they do in sweden, norway or demnark - and they gets all sorts of shit like free healthcare and weeks of paid leave for family stuff... and the vast, vast majority of people like it.
Versus our deal - where the middle class is taxed out the ass, and supports the poork and illegals while the wealthy pay a lower effective rate, and the middle class doesnt get shit.
" About seven million people died of starvation in the USSR just in 1932–33"
Yeah that wasnt cuz of socialism - it was because of Stalin and Bolshevik Jews mowing the lawn.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm
not that Johnathan would be expected to say so.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n1p-4_Weber.html
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=km6u4L1JsmY
What a smug cunt. I'm not even necessarily pro-socialist, I just don't stop thinking when some twat who ignores the fundamental problems of capitalism while opining on the flaws of a system he doesnt define.
Socialism how - like the USSR? ok bad. Like Denmark - not so bad.
Of course, for the Mises crowd, the problems of capitalism are always DEFINED OUT of capitalism -0 its just "crony capitalism" they say - which is horseshit. Without regulation, etc. you'd simply have mega monopolies and even worse abuses than we have now.
No system is perfect - its really about finding some balance.
Generally, capitalism seems a better system for individual liberty and innovation, etc. Sure - but this facile Randian view of a "pure" free market rests in ideology, not the real world - a criticism of libertarianism frm the left that has some, anyways, merit.
As for no borders.... well- I wonder if ol' Johnathan feels as liberal about immigration when it comes to Israel...
Is it free if they pay taxes to get it?
If it sux holy ass, is it worth paying for?
Still resolute with "the government" forcing someone else pay for a workers bus fare and health insurance I see, instead of them buying a vehicle to transport themselves to work for themselves (or someone else).
Statist much?
You stated that without regulation things would be worse than they are now.
How do you know that?
Rothbard in his delightful histories shows over and over again that regulation is the tool of cronyism. He doesn't just pull this out of ideology, he relishes in naming names and connecting dots with employment history, marriages, and fishing buddies
Who regulates the regulators? They live in anarchy.
You have repeated the basic assertion of socialists. that the market will devolve into a dystopia of a few haves and a mass of starving masses.
seems to me that the feared dystopia existed for the era before the rise of liberalism in the classic sense, and is the dystopia today in much of the world. ( not that US Banker socialism doesn't have a hand in the world 's misery).
there are things like natural monopolies, and monopolies did arise without any regulators (and in some cases because of corrupt regulators)
a completely free market has to ask the question: how is a free market really better if there is a dominating and manipulating monopolist? or a bunch of oligopolists?
Rothbard's delightful histories are fun to read, and he is right on many things... but not completely on how oligopolies and monopolies arise
and he offers no medicine against those illnesses, claiming that a truly free market does not allow such things... as a matter of faith
the very fact that we have often "battles of the industrial standards" ought to suffice any even cursory exploration into the matter
but also a very simple look on a dam on a river ought to explain that it is possible to monopolize a market, no matter how free, and... period
So the folks who have a monopoly on ultimate organized violence will be the ones to prevent monopolies?
This is a sloppy article for the Mises Institute. Not saying it's wrong, but maybe focus on something next time?
What I find interesting right now is that media sources seem to be more effective than ever at keeping large groups of people asking the wrong questions. And I think it's because people have no attention span and they only get 140 characters of "what does mean for me?" garbage. And they form instant opinions on things just because someone summed it up for them in a blip.
Capitalism would work as well as anything else if the means of its production were broadly distributed and not produced by decree of central banks and governments.
What is that famous saying, "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
Okay, I am biting. But I have been Drinking.
Central Planning is a hallmark of communism. So, the joke is by you on ZH.
Central planning is a hallmark of government growth from lower left to upper right by decree regardless of philosophy.
yeah, I ve been drinking so what?
Central planning is the hallmark of communism.
What I find remarkable is the commenters outing themselves here, very refreshing instead of all the dancing around. What they advocate is "authority" controlling their very lives...lol...fucking pussies.
Its wonderful, a real keeper ;-)
This a nice argument if you completely forget that everything that can be rigged in favor of crony capitalists - IS rigged in favor of crony capitalists, and everything that can be manipulated in favor of crony capitalists - IS rigged in favor of crony capitalists.
Everything you need to know about socialism in one old joke from Soviet Moscow:
A man walks into a shop with empty shelves. "Hello," he says to the shopkeeper,"Is this the store with no shoes?"
"No," the shopkeeper replies, "This is the store with no potatoes. The store with no shoes is next door."
"Thank you," replies the man, and he goes next door.
Let those who have Reconning, Recon the Number of the Beast...
Look buddy, the US Federal Government has the seeds of Communism, Socialism, Fascist, Monarchism, Elitism, Masonism, Sumarianism, Egyptism, Grecism, Charlemagism, and Machevelianism.
We like to call it Neoconism, but Democrats think it went away some where...
ICON: Count Dracul.
Let's hear arguments against capitalism when there's some country that actually has a capitalist system in place. It ain't the US or any of the Western "democracies", that's for sure. And no, crony capitalism doesn't count.
Should be, "Lets here arguments for capitalism when there's some country that actually has a capitalist system in place.
fify
Gee I wonder where "Capitalism" would be today if id didn't have 500+ years of exploitation?
Yet another Liberatian BS article rant against Socialism. ZH is full of it. I think I had enough of ZH. Way too much Libertarian BS for my taste. I think I shall take my leave now.
Oh and ZH didnt make ANy money off me cuz I always have Adblock on. Sorry ZH, couldn't exploit me but as you know a sucker is born every minit. Bye bye, Libertarians keep on living in your fantasy world!
Petkov out.
Look at all these options you have to waste your time on the internet. Geez, capitalism, you suck. I'm taking my ad dollars somewhere where they suck socialism's dick. Point out the profit-loss motive is essential for functioning society? Ugh. I'll show you by proving your point.
From what I can see real socialists don't ignore the problems with socialism they actively hide them. They don't really care about people, the truth, or what produces the best outcomes.
Socialism: Substituting the so-called problems of free association without coercion and violence, with enslavement by coercion and violence. Yeah, that's the ticket.
The closet mankind has gotten to real capitalism was in the American country from 1790 to 1913, and in Hong Kong for about 100 years. Both times the countries and societis thrived.. The rest of the time, what is called "capitalism," including today, is really crony-capitalism, and it's fruits are all around, but best exemplified by drone warfare.
Liberty is a demand. Tyranny is submission..
Capitalism is people producing and trading to better their lives.
Crony-capitalism/Socialism/Fascism/Communism are people producing and trading to remain alive.
So, your "golden age" of US capitalism includes the Gilded Age of the Robber Barons, which looks pretty similar to what we see happening today. Seems like capitalism ends up with corporate control and growing inequality. Makes socialism sound like a better deal for most citizens.
http://www.alternet.org/story/156111/8_ways_america's_headed_back_to_the_robber-baron_era
Hmm, no great depressions, the most rapid prolonged increase in middle class wage growth in American history, an Industrial Revolution that made slavery obsulete, ECONOMIC CONDITIONS SO GREAT IMMIGRANTS WERE ARRIVING BY THE BOATLOADS... Yup, things were a disaster. Were Americans better off before of after this era that middle school text books have told you was so horrible? Did our standard of living increase or decrease from beginning to end? If only Greece, Spain, Portugal, France, Ireland, Belgium, etc. (just about the entire Eurozone, actually) hadn't gone in the OPPOSITE direction the past several decades, your assertion that socialism is a "better deal" might at least be SOMEWHAT plausible.
Hmm...depression of 1893 was the worse depression the US had experienced at the time. Bank runs, 500 banks closed, 15,000 business failures, many farms closed. Unemployment rate 43% in Michigan, 35% in New York, 25% in Pennsylvania... Soup kitchens feeding starving people who chopped wood for food. Good times.
How about the exploitation of workers that led to Upton Sinclair's writing of "The Jungle" in 1906, which portrayed the harsh working conditions, lack of social services and hopelessness suffered by workers at the time. Good times.
Then there was the Panic of 1907, major drop in industrial production, high level of bankruptcies. rising unemployment, drop in immigration. The banksters got greedy again. Good times.
Oh, and of course, who can forget slavery? Helped make SOME folks pretty rich during much of your "golden age". The rest, well...not so good for them. Good times.
Some people see things a little differently, apparently.
PS. Maybe you should educate yourself on the Eurozone and the failure of a monetary union without a fiscal union, which is the reason those countries are struggling. If those hadn't given up their sovereignty, they could use the usual tactic of depreciating their currency to boost their economies. Its not about socialism. The Nordic model is working just fine.
And how long did those "depressions" last? Not long. The current one has already gone on far longer than the 1893 depression, and with higher unemployment levels (that is, if you use the same formulas to calculate unemployment, as they've since been changed several times to make them appear lower). And far lower than the current official unemployment levels in Spain, Greece, etc. The Panic of 1907 was a JOKE. It lasted 13 months. Unemployment (with the far less generous formula I mentioned earlier) rose from under 3% to a whopping 8%. The horror!
And no, slavery isn't a product of capitalism, either (to suggest that it is only shows that you don't have a clue what the most basic definition of capitalism is). Every country had slavery, and it was already on the decline here. The slave trade had already ended decades before the Civil War. The cotten gin, along with other machinery, was already making slavery obsulete.
The current one is more of a recession than a depression. Unemployment isn't nearly as bad, and there are some social programs that keep people from starving. And despite the depressions/panics not lasting as long, a lot of businesses went bust and people lost everything. In any case, panics were common enough during your "golden age" that a commission was set up to look at JP Morgan's role. From Wikipedia, on the Panic of 1907:
"Since the end of the Civil War, the United States had experienced panics of varying severity. Economists Charles Calomiris and Gary Gorton rate the worst panics as those leading to widespread bank suspensions—the panics of 1873, 1893 and 1907, and a suspension in 1914. Widespread suspensions were forestalled through coordinated actions during both the 1884 and 1890 panics. A bank crisis in 1896, in which there was a perceived need for coordination, is also sometimes classified as a panic.
The frequency of crises and the severity of the 1907 panic added to concern about the outsized role of J.P. Morgan which led to renewed impetus toward a national debate on reform. In May 1908, Congress passed the Aldrich-Vreeland Act that established the National Monetary Commission to investigate the panic and to propose legislation to regulate banking. Senator Nelson Aldrich (R-RI), the chairman of the National Monetary Commission, went to Europe for almost two years to study that continent's banking systems."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1907#Aftermath
JP Morgan had a nice long run as plutocratic royalist during your "golden age". When the legislature finally decided to address the financial instability problem, the result was the Federal Reserve Act and, later, Glass-Steagall. Of course with deregulation and all, things are moving back to bankster rule. (btw, Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who has reinstating G-S as part of his platform. Feel the bern.)
Also, the Industrial Age that produced the great wealth of the Robber Barons and Captains of Industry was built on worker exploitation. There were no limits on the age of workers or how many hours they worked. Children were poorly paid and worked hard under harsh conditions. It was not unusual for children to work 12-14 hour days for little or no pay around dangerous equipment. Some workers, employed in company towns, paid almost all their earnings for food and shelter to the monopolists who employed them. Workers were often employed under dangerous conditions, and if they got hurt they were fired and replaced. You ignore the ugly realities to fit your agenda.
Like I said, they've changed the unemployment formula multiple times since then to make it appear lower. Now, once you've been unemployed for one year, you're basically considered retired. If you use the same formulas that were used back then, it's been 23% for years. And Bernie Sanders is a joke. He wants the minimum wage to be $15, yet he pays his interns $12. (One wonders why he waited until he had no shot at passing the bill to prose $15? Why not $25? $50? $100? He would have had no opposition had he proposed it in 2009.) He rails against the Monsanto Protection Act, yet he voted for it. He's NEVER voted against raising the debt ceiling. Glass-Steagall was only needed to counter-act the damage done by another failed government policy... Government-guaranteed bank deposits. Even when the market crashed in 1929, only about 5% of deposits weren't met. Now that all deposits are guaranteed, the banks have been even more reckless than ever.
Child labor was already on the decline when it was finally outlawed. Thanks to machines. Capitalism killed child labor. For the country in general, you're still ignoring the biggest issue that makes your argument completely ridiculous: Were workers paid better or worse after the "robber baron" era or before it? Were working conditions better or worse? That answer is obvious. It's also obvious that almost the entire Eurozone, that Bernie wants us be more like, has gone in the opposite direction.
The Daily Caller missed the fact that Sanders $15 minimum wage is to be phased in gradually, through 2020, so the $12 he pays his interns (Vermont's minimum wage is $9.15 an hour and Hillary, for one, doesn't pay her interns at all) is on track. The $15 target is reasonable in this respect.
Regarding the Monsanto Protection Act, it was quietly and anonymously inserted into the continuing resolution passed to avert government shutdown, which was what Bernie was actually voting for. He has since spoken out against it and also against sneaking riders into major legislation that is in urgent need of passing.
Raising the debt ceiling is necessary because we continue to fight unfunded wars with low taxes. With the exception of the vote to authorize use of military force against Al Quaida after 9/11, Bernie has vocally and consistently voted against using military force to fight the neverending "War on Terror".
Glass-Steagall was necessary for the average citizen to have a safe place to deposit their funds. A better way would be to have postal savings banks run by the government, but with the way our financial system is designed, its the best we can do. Deposits wouldn't be at risk if risky investment banking wasn't able to utilize them at the casino. Sound commercial banking was not responsible for the derivatives mess that caused the financial crisis.
You are wrong about machines replacing child labor. On the contrary, child labor was used extensively in textile mills, where the whole family was employed. It wasn't until the Great Depression, when adults became so desperate for work that they were willing to get paid the same low wages as children, that it began to disappear. The agriculture loophole still exists, so children are still slaving away in the fields for Big Ag, being exposed to harmful pesticides and dangerous machinery.
So, desperate people are willing to be exploited to get by. Things improved a lot after the socialist New Deal legislation was enacted.to provide for the general welfare. Most people think that is a good thing, and are willing to pay taxes to support things like health care, education and infrastructure that helps everybody. The millenials are particularly immune from the Socialist scare tactics used by the dinosaur parrty supporters that watch Fox (average viewer age is 68.8). They will be willing to support a candidate like Bernie, whose policies offer hope for real change and a fight against the Plutocracy.
Again, the EU's problem is not socialism. The downfall was due to having a monetary union without a fiscal union. Doesn't work.
http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1842404/greeces-debt...
With respect, but that is the line that the indoctrination centers, and related noiZ-media, push. It is great that you disagree with me, as it shows that you are a thinking person. However, you should know why you disagree--have the facts from both sides.
It was the Progressives, mostly Christian socialists (more power for gov.) and communists (all power for gov.) that pushed that idea. Zionists, post Herzl, then adopted the Progressives' disperse, but well enough organized movement, to their own aims.
Progressives became Zion's first power base in the DC US. They utilized it to promulgate dissension and tension within the American society, and big business, private property, became their first target of opportunity. Unions and "break ups." I.e. take and consolidate power in the hands of big government, eventually their hands, and not in the hands of big business.
We are not "headed back" to the so-called Robber Baron era. The so-called Gilded Age was mostly private industry thriving. Most, if not all, abuses involved the government--grants, loans, "internal improvements," etc. Now we have imperial business--business part and partial of government, operating as one. Operating as one big tyranny plundering the people on the behalf of a fifth-column colonizer--Zion.
Liberty is a demand. Tyranny is submission.
Always think. Never agree.
Jonathan should read Marx's Capitalism because for one thing Marx was good in was laying out all its flaws. Hundred years later he sounds like a prophet although he was only a critic of his times. The funny thing about Marx is that Comunist Manifesto is as realistic as the writings of Austrians. Assuming the ideal conditions, the ideal framework through which everyone behaves and which is enforced by some benevolent higher power both systems can work. If only all comunists were actually equal and equaly good in their jobs VS if only all capital owners were equal in access to information and capital. As capitalism ages and capital gets concentrated we would need the equalisation event - creative destruction to resurect the young capitalism phase. Do the richest capitalist whose assetts could get destroyed want the same for the sake of capital? Hell no, keep the party going. Crony capitalism, monopolies, corporotism with socialism (to provide the serfs just enough money not to rebel and maybe some stuff from walmart) is what marks late capitalism stage.
Maybe that Marx brother should have spent a little time studying and writing about the fallicies of communism before millions had to die and suffer under it in Russia, and Rhodesia, and several other places its been tried not too long ago. Pity.
It would be best if he did not write it at all. It's a stupid idea. Idealistic, utopian, in the end unreal and sometimes horific. But the points in his critique of Capital cannot be argued. The fact that as capitalism ages, it always turns into monopolistic crony capitalism. This has happened several times before on this scale. And it was always resolved in a major equalisation event. Primarily war. The ideas of austrian school of economics requires that the rich are ready to become poor because of their malinvestments. That they will not use money to affect politicians to allow that. For some crazy reason I do not think they will.
And anti-socialists ignore the obvious and growing cracks in the capitalist system, which has become a victim of its own success. As the fantastic new technologies produced by capitalism continue to destroy jobs, and as wealth continues to concentrate, what are most people going to do to support themselves? We may be in the early stages of a major transformation, akin to the one from feudalism to capitalism, and may be enterting the post-capitalistic era. How we structure that era is the question, but it's hard to imagine that a lot more 'sharing' won't be necessary, barring widespread revolution or a Hunger Games future.
Look Newman, nobody is advocating for a "socialist" government. Your condescending lesson on the horrors of same is therefore gratuitous. We don't want to "own the means of production" or any other academic bullshit.
Nor do we need any more dogmatic tripe about "free markets". There is no such thing. Certainly not now, and not ever. REGULATED capitalist economies, sponsored by democratic goverments with some socialist policies, are successful. Look around and look back. We can certainly argue about the extent to which capitalism is regulated and policies are socialist, however I think your side of the argument would be to brand me "anti-capitalist", which is the real point of the article.
If you work for a wage you are not a capitalist. You may work for one however. Democratic governments function in part to proactively insulate the populace FROM capitalist / market forces. In some places they still do. Not here. Many of the "handout" / socialist policies and programs of today are reactive measures, made necessary or grotesquely distorted by the results of 30 or 40 years of deregulation, "globalism", "free trade", tax cuts, open borders and extreme political venality. Another result is that all "Markets" are also grotesquely distorted.
LOL - that IS funny stuff.
Well, at least (the very least) you knew enough to put "free trade" in quotes when referring to the last few decades.
Look, the institutionalized Austrian economic policies and unbridled capitalism in this country has gotten us in this mess, so time to change it up.
Market schmarket - fuck that shit.
In another article I commented that most people would blame capitalism rather than Keynesianism for the next collapse, because they don't have a clue what either one of them is. Judging by some of the comments below mine, they've started early. FML
More STUPID STUFF presented within the language of political labels that is ridiculous, both because such use of language deliberately ignores both the dictionary definitions of those labels, as well as the social facts.
There is only one system which corresponds to that there is only one energy being pumped entropically in basically the same ways, all of which most closely match the principles and methods of organized crime. Meanwhile, the STUPID STUFF presented in the article above blithely continues to use labels that contradict the definitions of those terms, as well as do not match the social facts, because it is more important to the people who like to promote their bullshit world view to be able to repeat the same STUPID STUFF, than go through the kinds of profound paradigm shifts it would take in order to create a political science which was genuinely more scientific.
The ONLY things that exist are the dynamic equilibria between different systems of organized lies operating robberies. Private property is based upon backing up claims with coercions, with money being the most abstract form of that, since money is measurement backed by murder. Note, I am NOT thereby asserting that there should be no "private property," rather I am asserting that private property does not exist outside of some system of public violence. To the degree that public violence exists, private property exists.
Governments emerge as the biggest forms of organized crime which are controlled by the best organized gangs of criminals. Note, I am NOT thereby asserting that we should stop governments from existing in that way, because that is the same as asserting the human beings should stop being entropic pumps of energy flows, whose actual operations must necessarily most closely match the principles and methods of organized crime. ALL possible actually existing political systems are always variations on the theme of organized crime.
All of the political economy labels that are prevalent, and which were presented in the article above, were developed as the bullshit of the biggest bullies, due to the ways that the biggest and best organized gangs of criminals were able to dominate civilization, so that their bullshit is treated as if it was not bullshit, because they were bullies that could back their bullshit up. Note, I am NOT thereby asserting that we should stop that from happening. Rather, I am asserting that more people should understand that better, so that it might be possible to develop better dynamic equilibria between the different systems of organized lies operating robberies. To put it another way, people should not believe the bullshit, although they should take a realistic attitude towards the ability of the bullies to back that bullshit up.
Our political problems are due to the excessive successes of the biggest bullies' bullshit social stories dominating everything too much, for too long, such that their dualities, expressed as false fundamental dichotomies, and the related impossible ideals, are almost totally taken for granted within the context of most publicly significant political "debates," due to there now being almost nothing but a core of organized crime, surrounded by controlled opposition groups, both of which promote basically the same bullshit world view.
Due to the prolonged paradoxes that human beings necessarily live through systems of organized lies operating robberies, the social situations have developed that those who were the best at doing that are now the most wealthy and politically powerful, and therefore, are most able to continue to get away with spouting STUPID STUFF, including those who are the controlled opposition groups, while the vast majority of people have been conditioned to agree with that bullshit, due to the long history of backing up lies with violence, for generation after generation.
On the contrary, I REPEAT my view is that there is only ONE political system, because everyone lives by being entropic pumps of ONE energy. That unitary mechanism most matches the principles and methods of organized crime. All other labels for political economy are deliberately misleading bullshit, promoted by the core of organized crime, and then adopted by the controlled opposition groups. It is from inside that context that the article above was nothing but the same old STUPID STUFF, that presents superficial nonsense, based on old-fashioned dualities being almost totally taken for granted, and therefore, relies upon the same STUPID STUFF, in the form of labels for political phenomena in ways are actually utterly nonsensical on every possible level (except possibly the hidden levels whereby controlled opposition groups are able to operate inside of the established systems of organized crime.)
Political science could not make any real sense unless one were to approach human beings and civilization as manifestations of general energy systems. HOWEVER, when one actually does that one discovers that groups of human beings, as soon as we define them as separate from their environment, necessarily live as robbers in their environment, and so, history has been the development of organized crime on larger and larger scales, which also corresponded with the development of bullshit social stories about that, which are as absurdly backward as could possibly be, in the most profound ways possible. Therefore, the article above was nothing but another repetition of the same dead-end bullshit STUPID STUFF.
It's funny, the best description of the human condition I ever saw was in a documentary on waves ("The Secret Life Of Waves", I think). Essntially, Waves are not moving water, they are a manifestation of energy transfer from the 3d to the 2d plane. Each wave has a lifespan where it is imbued with energy which then travels a certain distance in the form of a wave and then moves on, water simply lapping back into the pool of matter. Energy simply borrows water to flow. The bloke in the show made a pretty profound link there to human bodies - in many ways we are effectively the same, we are a manifestation of the Sun's energy which we harvest from food and dissipate progressively throughout our lifetimes. Our bodies are just borrowed matter which facilitates the energy flow, just like a wave. We are not what we think we are, we are (as you said) in basic terms just energy pumps. Eventually the energy moves on and our bodies literally dissipate and fall apart.
Implications are profound and boundless. Because perspective ;-)
I disagree with the article, socalism is a means of consumption, specificaly the redistribution of goods and services, not a means of production. Capitalism is a means of production, both need to be in balance without adiquate production, you can't have redistribution and consumption.
The way the various assorted bloggers bandy about labels like "socialism" and "capitalism" is fucking depressing. Capitalism is not the problem, the problem is the subversion of the state. The problem is not corporations breaking the law; the problem is that they don't have to because they get to write the law. The state is merely muscle. This is the reality.
I grew up in a socialist state. Yeah sounds tragic, but it wasn't at all. It was a basic trade-off - everyone had much less, but everyone had enough. No one had much (in 1960s, the First Secretary of the Socialist Party lived in a block of flats with regular Joes for neighbours btw) but no one was homeless, or starving. Education was head and shoulders about what the kids get in the UK today. Not even in the same ballpark tbh.
Capitalism is probably the most workable concept but I am not sure what can be done to prevent the state from getting subverted. It seems to me that it is an inevitability. Food for thought.
In 1917 most leftists pointed out that Bolshevism was misguided and would lead to despotism. Luxemburg, Plekhanov, the Mensheviks, council communists, others of whom Lenin called 'infantile leftists.' Socialism doesn't mean state control of everything and minute planning instead of a market. That's Bolshevism. They explicitly diverged from orthodox socialism and derided those who didn't. Meanwhile, the orthodox Marxists tend to refer to the USSR as 'state capitalist' right from 1918. Lenin didn't believe the Russian revolution could survive without an internatinoal revolution spreading from Germany, but the German revolution broke out prematurely, was crushed, and by the end of his life Lenin had lost hope. Any 'leftist' who supports or ever has supported the soviet model is ignorant.
Bolshevism is wrong but other, orthodox forms of socialsm do and have existed like the Mondragon Cooperative system in Spain, the autogestion movement in Argentina, the Syrian Kurdish project and anywhere you find a cooperative operating, from Korea to Finland to Vancouver. The definition of socialism is worker ownership and control of the workplace. Sometimes by drawn-out democratic proccesses, sometimes by hiring management to manage them on their own behalf. Every state and company engages in planning to some degree. But state planning without democratic workplaces is absolutely not socialism.
The ideas of Marx that the bolsheviks skipped over aren't ungrounded dogma, they're logical observations: Capitalism needs to reach it's own innate limit in it's most advanced form, it is the most dynamic force in history; you can't just abolish the market and say this is socialism. But we can't have a system based on constant growth forever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Marxism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism
https://www.marxists.org/subject/left-wing/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Ocalan
Examples of propaganda and disinformation successfully used to the detriment of the economy: