Current Events > I'm at a national conference for work. Lots more socialists than years past

(+) Yeah! (+)

ITT: we pretend capitalism isnt a catastrophic failure, and call socialism a catastrophic failure
---

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

ITT: we pretend capitalism isnt a catastrophic failure, and call socialism a catastrophic failure

what's it like to be so misinformed that you start seeing the exact opposite of reality?

Broseph_Stalin posted...

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

ITT: we pretend capitalism isnt a catastrophic failure, and call socialism a catastrophic failure

what's it like to be so misinformed that you start seeing the exact opposite of reality?

I know I am right, and so do you.
---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

society where profit is no longer the prime directive of production.

yes lets do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result what could go wrong?

do you think it might have done better if the largest military power in history wasn't trying to ensure its failure?
---

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

I know I am right

That's called the DunningKruger effect.

averagejoel posted...

do you think it might have done better if the largest military power in history wasn't trying to ensure its failure?

Probably not since Soviet industry was inherently inefficient anyway. The small amount of farmland that was privatized in the USSR (~2%) produced more than a quarter of the agricultural output, for example.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

I know I am right

That's called the DunningKruger effect.

Yes, you done did the Kruger.
---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Probably not since Soviet industry was inherently inefficient anyway. The small amount of farmland that was privatized in the USSR (~2%) produced more than a quarter of the agricultural output, for example.

even if this is true (which I'm gonna need to see a source for by the way), that doesn't actually mean that the industries were "inherently" inefficient
---

Good luck because PA is like 50% Alabama.
---

@Broseph_Stalin

Note that averagejoel overplays US influence whenever he is arguing that the Soviet Union was communist and rejects that the Soviet Union was communist every other time.

And he conveniently ignores the nations like Romania that went down just because the Marxists ran it into the ground lmao
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPLQNUVmq3o" data-time="
---

TheMikh posted...

neoliberalism is garbage

but socialism?

Also, this.
---

Godnorgosh posted...

Proudclad isn't too different from many of us in that he seeks a post-capitalist society where profit is no longer the prime directive of production. I think he wouldn't call such a society socialist if it were to come about, but then it's mostly just a nominal disagreement at that point.

Yeah I think Proudclad believes in human centric capitalism, no? What do you think of Yang @pls ?
---

Its sad that people are so stupid on both sides of the political spectrum that theyre openly embracing genocidal ideologies from the mid 20th century.

---

lol is 'human centric capitalism' an actual thing people say and talk about?

---

The Admiral posted...

Its sad that people are so stupid on both sides of the political spectrum that theyre openly embracing genocidal ideologies from the mid 20th century.

I don't think its stupidity. I guess if I had to speculate the issue is more like ignorance -- I guess its hard to talk about without sounding like I think some compromise 'third way' is the answer and I guess I do think that to some extent but what I mean is these socialists literally can't articulate what the other side thinks and I know that your side also is incapable of articulating what socialists actually think. It's definitely all caricatures all around.

---

Balrog0 posted...

lol is 'human centric capitalism' an actual thing people say and talk about?

Apparently the goal is so embrace a meritocratic system in which profit at all costs isnt the end game? Theres so much shit going on this election cycle to pay attention to.
---

Also, @Balrog0 since you know way more about political theory than a lot of CE and it seems you and I agree more than we disagree, how do you feel about value added taxes? Im genuinely curious and want to learn as much as I can.
---

The Admiral posted...

Its sad that people are so stupid on both sides of the political spectrum that theyre openly embracing genocidal ideologies from the mid 20th century.

Now the thread is pretending that capitalism isn't a genocidal ideology.
---

capitalism is a perjorative term for a specific group of people, unlike socialism which is a thing people actually called themselves for ideological reasons. the attempt to frame the us as a capitalist system is probably barry goldwaters fault or an artifact of cold war hysteria. if you listen to like FDR attacking capitalist he isnt attacking free market proponents he's talking about, you know, the owners of capital

---

Godnorgosh posted...

Proudclad isn't too different from many of us in that he seeks a post-capitalist society where profit is no longer the prime directive of production. I think he wouldn't call such a society socialist if it were to come about, but then it's mostly just a nominal disagreement at that point.

To further expand.

Socialists are too fixated on who owns the means of production. Implying that there's a singular means of production or some scarcity that requires that workers seize the means of production. It also gets too mired in a religious sort of attitude against private property and investment. And socialists are way too religious about always interpreting everything in terms of class, or making up characteristics that put you into "lesser" or "higher" classes.

Technology and global competition have disproven several assumptions socialists made. We see poverty decreasing rapidly on a global scale because of the prosperity capitalism creates.We see workers with a significantly higher standard of living over time. And we see that as marginal costs for industry approach 0, we have more means of production and less scarcity.

Capitalism is also becoming deprecated. The profit motive is legitimate, but the idea that everyone should work for a living is not compatible with a greater vision for the human condition. We are at the point where we can technologically provide food, shelter, travel, and general resources to every human being. Sustainably too.

The advent of Star Trek is upon us if we just have the will to act. This doesn't even mean that people with wealth will need to give up their wealth. What it means is that wealth will become less meaningful.

Consider 100 years ago that only someone very wealthy could afford a brand new home of the size and quality of average middle class or upper-middle class homes today. With time, technological advancement and the prosperity introduced by business has enabled many more people who are far less wealthy to afford those homes.

The same is true of vehicles, phones, and food. Technology is the greatest equalizing force on earth, and it has been doing this without the workers "seizing and owning the means of production."

The problem we will face is that there's going to be less work that the average person can do. Tying the food you put on the table to a shitty job is immoral. We must do better as a species. In this case if communities want to coordinate to implement communal gardens, farms, telecommunications, and power...all decentralized, all resilient and reliable and sustainable, then they should be free to do so and we should enable a governing system that enables and encourages these types of initiatives.

This is all distinctly different from the more religious and key axioms within Marxism, where the goal is not to achieve Star Trek but to have "da workerz" seize the means of production. The latter does not necessarily imply the former, and the former doesn't imply the latter either.

In this better vision for humanity there's no reason why someone can't go work a shitty job or a good job if they want to to build their own decentralized energy source or their own farm.

Socialists are already currently devouring themselves because of identity politics, which is toxic. It's a cancer that divides people and I fully detest this type of cult bullshit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=UPLQNUVmq3o
---

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

Now the thread is pretending that capitalism isn't a genocidal ideology.

"Pretending"

---

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

Now the thread is pretending that capitalism isn't a genocidal ideology.

It isn't.

pls posted...

Implying that there's a singular means of production or some scarcity that requires that workers seize the means of production.

That's communism. You should really learn the difference.
---

welp this will surely go well

---

coh posted...

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

Now the thread is pretending that capitalism isn't a genocidal ideology.

It isn't.

The power of imagination. Truly breathtaking to behold.
---

Balrog0 posted...

capitalism is a perjorative term for a specific group of people, unlike socialism which is a thing people actually called themselves for ideological reasons. the attempt to frame the us as a capitalist system is probably barry goldwaters fault or an artifact of cold war hysteria. if you listen to like FDR attacking capitalist he isnt attacking free market proponents he's talking about, you know, the owners of capital

Shit is wild how its twisted over time. Propaganda got Donald fucking Trump elected. Were in for one hell of a shitstorm as we get deeper into the 21st.
---

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

The power of imagination. Truly breathtaking to behold.

Explain how it's genocidal

Godnorgosh posted...

HydraSlayer82 posted...

the attempt to frame the us as a capitalist system is probably barry goldwaters fault

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but what would you call the economic system of the US if not capitalist?

I didnt say that but IMO its an oligarchy.
---

Balrog0 posted...

I don't think its stupidity. I guess if I had to speculate the issue is more like ignorance -- I guess its hard to talk about without sounding like I think some compromise 'third way' is the answer and I guess I do think that to some extent but what I mean is these socialists literally can't articulate what the other side thinks and I know that your side also is incapable of articulating what socialists actually think. It's definitely all caricatures all around.

It's not ignorance when it comes to the fringe ideologies like communism or ultranationalism. I can articulate what both sides believe and tell you exactly why both of those ideologies are just as stupid as they were when they resulted in tens of millions of deaths last century.

It's virtually impossible to make an cogent argument against capitalism in general, given that it has single-handedly done more to lower global poverty and starvation and lift this planet's standard of living than any single other factor in world history. It's objectively better and more effective than socialism has ever proven to be in even its most successful cherry-picked examples. But that's not to say that it's perfect. It's an economic system -- it was not designed as a framework to address everything else in society. It has inefficiencies that should be fixed.

TBH, I think the socialist crowd would do a lot better if they toned down the class warfare rhetoric that's a holdover from Marxism and started focusing on general problems that everyone agrees need to be fixed. The rhetoric can't constantly be "take from the rich" or evocative of some French Revolution mentality that is as outdated as slavery.

---

The Admiral posted...

It's virtually impossible to make an cogent argument against capitalism in general, given that it has single-handedly done more to lower global poverty and starvation and lift this planet's standard of living than any single other factor in world history.

The best argument against capitalism is that it's too effective at what it does. To the point where the vast majority of labor opportunities will go to machines in due course.

Which does mean drastic imbalances in power, unless the marginal costs of doing business go towards $0 and the state and local communities/cities can then implement their own decentralized services. That way everyone has food, energy, housing, and financial resources as an output of shared prosperity from machines.

Marxists are way too focused on taking down the bourgeoisie and identity politics garbage. Instead of focusing on making everyone the bourgeoisie and facilitating conditions that make it easier for cities to ditch Comcast and just build their own telecommunications infrastructure without seeking a profit.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190102/07265341316/towns-cities-keep-ditching-comcast-to-build-their-own-broadband-networks.shtml

Marx was right about the dangers of monopolies and Marxists tend to be right about the market being unable to do everything we should want it to do as a modern species in 2019.

But they're wrong in enough ways that to intentionally try to implement everything Marx said would be idiotic.
---

Balrog0 posted...

capitalism is a perjorative term for a specific group of people, unlike socialism which is a thing people actually called themselves for ideological reasons. the attempt to frame the us as a capitalist system is probably barry goldwaters fault or an artifact of cold war hysteria. if you listen to like FDR attacking capitalist he isnt attacking free market proponents he's talking about, you know, the owners of capital

I take issue with the idea that "capitalist" is a pejorative. it might get used that way sometimes, but in the context of economic theory it's a neutral term for, as you said, someone who owns capital.

why do you take issue with the idea that the US is capitalist?
---

coh posted...

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

The power of imagination. Truly breathtaking to behold.

Explain how it's genocidal

Well, there's all that genocide.
---

averagejoel posted...

even if this is true (which I'm gonna need to see a source for by the way)

When your industry is so shockingly inefficient the statistics seem made up.

https://www.jec.senate.gov/reports/97th%20Congress/Soviet%20Economy%20in%20the%201980s%20-%20Problems%20and%20Prospects%20Part%20II%20(1186).pdf
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2493038?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/19/world/on-soviet-farms-collective-indifference.html
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1991-11-03-9104080856-story.html

In 1966, for example, the private sector produced 64 percent of the USSR's total gross production of potatoes, 43 percent of total vegetable production, 40 percent of meat, 39 percent of milk, and 66 percent of its egg production. Of paramount significance is the fact that the private sector produces these quantities on only slightly more than 3 percent of the USSR's total sown land

Yes, Soviet industry was that inefficient. It's kind of why the entire economy stagnated in the 70s and every socialist state that didn't carry out market reforms collapsed. Profit-seeking and private enterprise are both crucial if you want to incentivize investment and innovation.

Socialism does not work.

Heavily regulated capitalism is the way to go, imo

Keep private property, but lawyer the fuck out of corporations to ensure that they behave in a decent way to their employees
---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

averagejoel posted...

even if this is true (which I'm gonna need to see a source for by the way)

When your industry is so shockingly inefficient the statistics seem made up.

https://www.jec.senate.gov/reports/97th%20Congress/Soviet%20Economy%20in%20the%201980s%20-%20Problems%20and%20Prospects%20Part%20II%20(1186).pdf
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2493038?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/19/world/on-soviet-farms-collective-indifference.html
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1991-11-03-9104080856-story.html

In 1966, for example, the private sector produced 64 percent of the USSR's total gross production of potatoes, 43 percent of total vegetable production, 40 percent of meat, 39 percent of milk, and 66 percent of its egg production. Of paramount significance is the fact that the private sector produces these quantities on only slightly more than 3 percent of the USSR's total sown land

Yes, Soviet industry was that inefficient. It's kind of why the entire economy stagnated in the 70s and every socialist state that didn't carry out market reforms collapsed. Profit-seeking and private enterprise are both crucial if you want to incentivize investment and innovation.

Socialism does not work.

cool. now try addressing the rest of my point
---

??????

that was your entire point, you questioned my comment about soviet agriculture, even though it was common knowledge. I showed the data. The end.

Balrog0 posted...

One of the projects this group is undertaking is trying to reframe economic narrative specifically to undermine neoliberalism

Okay, that could get interesting.

Godnorgosh posted...

These questions and others like it should be asked whenever someone says "We should keep this system, but regulate it." There's a reason we're not regulating it now.

A better question is why we would abandon the most successful and efficient economic system in human history because of bad public policy in the US.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

A better question is why we would abandon the most successful and efficient economic system in human history because of bad public policy in the US.

"That guy as more stuff than me, and I want it!!"

averagejoel posted...

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Probably not since Soviet industry was inherently inefficient anyway. The small amount of farmland that was privatized in the USSR (~2%) produced more than a quarter of the agricultural output, for example.

even if this is true (which I'm gonna need to see a source for by the way), that doesn't actually mean that the industries were "inherently" inefficient

Sorry to just jump on this... but are you saying that once people gaining control of the means of production it became productive?HydraSlayer82 posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

Proudclad isn't too different from many of us in that he seeks a post-capitalist society where profit is no longer the prime directive of production. I think he wouldn't call such a society socialist if it were to come about, but then it's mostly just a nominal disagreement at that point.

Yeah I think Proudclad believes in human centric capitalism, no? What do you think of Yang @pls ?

Isnt Proudclad mostly pro capitalist? Wouldnt a progressive capitalist want to minimize work time investmentment but maximize profit?
---

Godnorgosh posted...

That system is destroying the human-habitable Earth, for starters.

No, carbon emissions are doing that. Of course, that's a by-product of industrialization that we wouldn't have had without free enterprise (interesting that socialists are only willing to credit capitalism with technological innovation when it comes to pollution...) but the point remains.

Climate change and bad public policy are not arguments for socialism. Adopting a horribly inefficient system of resource allocation doesn't magically reduce carbon emissions.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Adopting a horribly inefficient system of resource allocation doesn't magically reduce carbon emissions.

Gulags aren't exactly known for being huge carbon emitters, give or take an on-site crematorium.