why are you making it so black and white though? "it failed in russia, so clearly if we were to adopt communism in the US then we would necessarily have to adopt every single failed policy of the USSR/cuba/france--it's impossible to learn or improve anything from studying history, and to change any small facet (such as gender wage gaps) would be anti-marxist or something"
You're right. It depends, it depends. You have a much more nuanced view of these things than my other favorite forum, Ars Technica. But I'm still waiting for the final end of the liberal state. We all are. Nobama!
PS: The reason why you know Obama isn't a Marxist is that he seeks to reform capitalism rather then destroy it. Don't vote for him.
mustang posted:So let me clarify this. We can divide national income into wages and "surplus value", with surplus value being the sum of profit, rent, taxes, and interest. These are all easily measurable values counted in GDP. It makes sense that taxes are counted as surplus value because the liberal state is a tyrannical institution but whatever.
Not that easily measured since GDP is a sum of the prices of sold commodities, and since a price is a kind of exchange value, the equivalent form of that exchange value cannot itself have a price. That's why it's value is quantified in something common to all commodities like time, rather than a price which necessarily excludes the commodity that plays the role of money (like gold)
mustang posted:The problem with this definition is that it doesn't really justify the slave morality Marxism advocates. For example, some managers make millions of dollars in salary which is counted as wage income. Likewise, some companies pay their production line employees in stock options. Even janitors can receive most of their wage in "surplus value" even though the distinction between stock dividends and wages is academic in this case.
When it comes to appropriation, does it matter whether a line worker receives $2000 extra in salary or 400 shares? What about the top managers who can choose between a million dollar salary or 200,000 shares? There's some freedom in how each member of a class collects his due; I don't think undermines the basic idea of what it is for someone to appropriate based on the property of their labor-time versus their property in means of production or land or money. But I should also say, I think managers are definitely integral to the labor process, however, how far that goes when it's capitalist-exclusive activities like negotiating mergers or corporate branding is another topic that I can't say any more on.
mustang posted:If we use your definition of surplus value it actually doesn't do much to advance the "social revolution" or whatever. We're back to the problem of the Marxist concept of exploitation just being a way to feel morally superior to people who make more money than you. But I don't accuse you of this, because I think you honestly tried to make the concept of surplus value valid.
If surplus value doesn't exist in socialism, surplus certainly will. One person receiving more than they contribute, and another less, is not something that ends with class society. But it's uneven appropriation between individuals based on their needs and desires, and not uneven appropriation between individuals as members of classes defined by their ownership of property. Socialism has no non-public property in production, so economic classes can't exist, even if material inequalities between people continue on an individual level.
http://www.ted.com/talks/leslie_t_chang_the_voices_of_china_s_workers.html
Basically that workers care about the things they work on or worry about "alienation" is just a classist and racist commie myth. They care only about the money they get so they can improve their lives in the free market, and in fact workers want longer labor hours so they can earn more. Proletarians want to break free from the shackles of welfare and leftism/statism.
Chears.
Not that easily measured since GDP is a sum of the prices of sold commodities, and since a price is a kind of exchange value, the equivalent form of that exchange value cannot itself have a price. That's why it's value is quantified in something common to all commodities like time, rather than a price which necessarily excludes the commodity that plays the role of money (like gold)
That's a trivial distinction though, you should be able to adjust for the 0.000001% of the economy that goes into minting currency. Nobody uses gold or bitcoin by the way. If you were to base your measure on labor time then we're totally fucked because I think you would have to construct an entirely new statistical collection agency to do that.
The share of the economy going to wages is directly measured in GDP, it just isn't a useful measure. We both agree on that and we still don't have a way to evaluate policies in terms of eliminating surplus value.
PS There is not necessarily reason for communism if material inequality is accepted as natural. For all we know capitalism may already be communism, if there is a systemic reason why people with more needs and desires make more money (as opposed to people who stay home and troll Rhizzone all day).
If surplus value doesn't exist in communism, surplus certainly will. One person receiving more than they contribute, and another less, is not something that ends with class society. But it's uneven appropriation between individuals based on their needs and desires, and not uneven appropriation between individuals as members of classes defined by their ownership of property. Socialism has no non-public property in production, so economic classes can't exist, even if material inequalities between people continue on an individual level.
You can't seriously draw a line between public and non-public property like Mises.org does. With that said, needs and desires are inherently unmeasurable, so we're no longer in scientific territory, we're using magic.
Everyone should watch this TED talk which debunks Marxism:
I hate TED, kill them all.
Trade is bad for the very reasons they described. The welfare state was created partly as a response to globalization.
Also hilarious that they had to find an asian person to make their speech just like they found a black person to oppose foreign aid.
rosewierd
No Mom.
Edited by mustang ()
mustang posted:That's a trivial distinction though, you should be able to adjust for the 0.000001% of the economy that goes into minting currency. Nobody uses gold or bitcoin by the way. If you were to base your measure on labor time then we're totally fucked because I think you would have to construct an entirely new statistical collection agency to do that.
The share of the economy going to wages is directly measured in GDP, it just isn't a useful measure. We both agree on that and we still don't have a way to evaluate policies in terms of eliminating surplus value.
I'm not talking about minted token currency, I mean the government and privately owned bullion hoards that a token (paper) currency replaces in circulation. When token currency is issued in excess of the gold it represents, the result is inflationary, particularly noticeable in the depreciation of the currency in terms of the 'price' of gold (gold doesn't actually have a true price).
mustang posted:You can't seriously draw a line between public and non-public property like Mises.org does. With that said, needs and desires are inherently unmeasurable, so we're no longer in scientific territory, we're using magic.
Can and do. All the time, in fact. Even things that aren't exchanged in a market can be needed or desired. People dedicate their time to saving historic buildings or stopping trees from being cut down without any a price being put on their efforts, a profit for their success, or loss from their failure. The idea that everything can be reduced to a common standard (like utility) is one type of what Otto Neurath called pseudorationalism.
I'm not talking about minted token currency, I mean the government and privately owned bullion hoards that a token (paper) currency replaces in circulation. When token currency is issued in excess of the gold it represents, the result is inflationary, particularly noticeable in the depreciation of the currency in terms of the 'price' of gold (gold doesn't actually have a true price).
But nobody uses bullion anymore, only buttcoin if at all. If the value of the currency changes then you can just adjust for any resulting inflation.
Can and do. All the time, in fact. Even things that aren't exchanged in a market can be needed or desired. People dedicate their time to saving historic buildings or stopping trees from being cut down without any a price being put on their efforts, a profit for their success, or loss from their failure. The idea that everything can be reduced to a common standard (like utility) is one type of what Otto Neurath called pseudorationalism.
That would never work in practice. Otto Neurath sounds like some kind of fugitive holocaust camp supervisor.
mustang posted:The other fun fact about Marxism is that it was originally meant to be a purely descriptive theory. It only became necessary to lean on "exploitation" and other normative concepts when capitalism failed to collapse as predicted and buttmad became the only justification for communism.
lmao thats like the reverse of what it was
exploitation is not a moral concept, you keep banging your head on all these words
It's not supposed to be a normative concept, it's just that communism never happened so the determinist parts of Marxism didn't really work out.
Cosmology is cyclical anyway, the future is feudalism not communism.
The liberal state crowds out working class savings by introducing a social safety net to insure against risk. Tax-and-transfer schemes that detach income from work actually weaken the proletariat's position in the long run. It's no surprise that the Jews who run the world- Gates, Soros, Buffet- are all liberals.
I think this is why European politics were so polarized before socialism was co-oped into welfarism after the 1950s. There was no real "center-left" in 1930s France or Germany; the left parties wanted complete nationalization and had little interest welfare or other instrumentalist goals. At some point along the way this wisdom was lost and the real socialist movement was submerged into welfare state politics.
Nationalization is the only real way to get wealth to the working class. Welfare policies that redistribute income but not the underlying asset ownership are actually counterproductive.
mustang posted:The interesting thing about the welfare state is that income equality is correlated with wealth inequality. Denmark, in particular, has the lowest income inequality in Europe and the second highest wealth inequality (after Switzerland). Leftists like to point to how wealth inequality is the "real" measure of inequality because wealth ginis are much higher than income ginis. But this is largely because of the policies they've supported.
The liberal state crowds out working class savings by introducing a social safety net to insure against risk. Tax-and-transfer schemes that detach income from work actually weaken the proletariat's position in the long run. It's no surprise that the Jews who run the world- Gates, Soros, Buffet- are all liberals.
I think this is why European politics were so polarized before socialism was co-oped into welfarism after the 1950s. There was no real "center-left" in 1930s France or Germany; the left parties wanted complete nationalization and had little interest welfare or other instrumentalist goals. At some point along the way this wisdom was lost and the real socialist movement was submerged into welfare state politics.
Nationalization is the only real way to get wealth to the working class. Welfare policies that redistribute income but not the underlying asset ownership are actually counterproductive.
nationalize the wealth>? no thanks, im white and im fine
nationalize the wealth>? no thanks, im white and im fine
But if you're working class or black, the welfare state policies you support are actually against your interest in the long run. Transfer payments disincentive savings among the working class, without having much effect on the bourgeois. As a result the working class accumulates a lot less savings and loses capital ownership.
Privatizing the welfare state would help the bourgeois in the short run, but after a few decades they would lose control of the economy because of the huge increase in the proletarian savings rate.
mustang posted:nationalize the wealth>? no thanks, im white and im fine
But if you're working class or black, the welfare state policies you support are actually against your interest in the long run. Transfer payments disincentive savings among the working class, without having much effect on the bourgeois. As a result the working class accumulates a lot less savings and loses capital ownership.
Privatizing the welfare state would help the bourgeois in the short run, but after a few decades they would lose control of the economy because of the huge increase in the proletarian savings rate.
like i said, im white and I post on rhizzone, so I dont identify as working class
if I was white working class tho i doubt i would be betting on mtw revs nationalizing everything within my lifetime
Remember that Hitler successfully staved off proletarian revolution by increasing progressive taxation and expanding welfare and job guarantee programs.
Regressive consumption taxes incentivize savings and are quite effective at raising working class savings in particular.
mustang posted:Then by all means support the welfare state and social democracy/social fascism.
Remember that Hitler successfully staved off proletarian revolution by increasing progressive taxation and expanding welfare and job guarantee programs.
Regressive consumption taxes incentivize savings and are quite effective at raising working class savings in particular.
hitler was an okay guy. do you know he liked mountain hiking, and german shepherd dogs? he also never raised his voice at a lunch table
Remember that Hitler successfully staved off proletarian revolution by increasing progressive taxation and expanding welfare and job guarantee programs.
lol
realistically what kind of revolutionary scenario could possibly occur in the united states though
Elimination of welfare and rising minority savings rates. Followed by race war. Ethnic tensions are great for civil wars.
I think the "American exceptionalism" view is misleading, the US is a very diverse country ripe to go full Rwanda given the chance.
It's interesting that my posts are getting downvoted. You have to realize that the reason the welfare state exists is to prevent nationalization. The distinctive feature of the Scandanavian welfare state is high welfare spending combined with minimal nationalization and barriers to trade. This prevents the working class from ever accumulating substantial wealth. With retirement covered by the government there's no incentive for the working class to save. The bourgeois on the other hand aren't worried about social insurance because they have a massive amount of wealth already.
All your arguments are those of useful idiots. Welfarism is just another ploy by the Jew elite to control the world. I hope you realize this someday.
Edited by mustang ()
mustang posted:Why not? Both the Black Panthers and the KKK support a separate black homeland.
It's interesting that my posts are getting downvoted. You have to realize that the reason the welfare state exists is to prevent nationalization. The distinctive feature of the Scandanavian welfare state is high welfare spending combined with minimal nationalization and barriers to trade. This prevents the working class from ever accumulating substantial wealth. With retirement covered by the government there's no incentive for the working class to save. The bourgeois on the other hand aren't worried about social insurance because they have a massive amount of wealth already.
All your arguments are those of useful idiots. Welfarism is just another ploy by the Jew elite to control the world. I hope you realize this someday.
the way forwards is through natures harmonic Four Sided Time Cube. bourgeoius jews hide this truth&educate you stupid. race war is imminent
the kkk support bantustans, the bpp supported a un-administered referendum leading to a socialist state
The BPP support those too.
http://www.ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_2_No_18_October_2011/29.pdf
Lebowa became a self-governing territory in 1973.63 Dr Phatudi was elected Chief Minister of Lebowa. His chief rival in 1973 was the prominent traditional leader known as Chief Matlala who was in favour of independence. Dr Phatudi64 was not in favour of the independence for Lebowa. In 1978, Dr Phatudi was re-elected Chief Minister and his rivals for leadership were Ramusi of the Lebowa People‟s Party (LPP) and Chief Molapo who led the Black People‟s Party (BPP).65 Chief Matlala who supported the idea of independence did not succeed in his endeavours to lead Lebowa into independence.
can we ban this guy yet???
Are you seeing the inconsistencies in your ideology yet???
jools posted:can we ban this guy yet???
didn't make any arguments, i just made fun of you for using the phrase "race war", because it is a shibboleth for slobbering racist would-be voyeurs of violence. you keep responding to everyone here like we are a single undifferentiated mass, it's gross, fuck you
That sounds gross, but if you weren't an undifferentiated mass at least some of you would fight to establish a black homeland. You're all liberal imperialists though.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eyesontheprize/sources/ps_panthers.html
Here's, like, the BPP declaration of independence. If you all knew anything about the BPP you would read it.
10. We want land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice and peace. And as our major political objective, a United Nations-supervised plebiscite to be held throughout the black colony in which only black colonial subjects will be allowed to participate for the purpose of determining the will of black people as to their national destiny.
Colonial subjects = black Americans. They want an independent homeland and/or the entire country.
mustang posted:That sounds gross, but if you weren't an undifferentiated mass at least some of you would fight to establish a black homeland. You're all liberal imperialists though.
marxism-leninism-rhizzomism-social fscism liberalimperialism & bourgeoisism
also i live in a country with 99.99% whitey, what am i supposed to do? there arent even enough non-white minorities to fill a supermarket
if slavs were white ! ! !