Is Marxism on the Rise?

[Ana the Ist]

The fast food worker is an employee, a peasant farmer may hire employees (typically temporarly, e.g. in harvest time).

Then he's a capitalist. He's not paying workers with promises.

I studied social anthropology

That's not a surprise. Don't take it out on everyone else.

A competition that was not part of the guild meant a craftsman without education in that craft.

So, Universities can be described as a monopoly - without academic legitimation you cannot become professor.

My concept of monopoly is somewhat different.

No, monopoly is derived from monos (one, only) and polis (town). If there is more than one actor, it is not a monopoly. Maybe an oligopoly, or a syndicate.

Monopoly : Meaning and Kinds | Managerial Economics

Let us make an in-depth study of monopoly:- 1. Meaning and Definition of Monopoly 2. Kinds of Monopoly. Meaning and Definition of Monopoly: "Monopoly is made of two words—'Mono' and 'Poly'. 'Mono' means single and 'Poly' means seller. Thus, 'Monopoly refers to a market situation where one firm...

www.economicsdiscussion.net

Nobody really cares what an anthropogist's idea of a monopoly is.

I looked after that tribe - I suppose you mean the Nez Perce, which are part of the Plateau culture. I meant the North-western tribes.

But rich ones have more opportunities that poor ones.

I tell you a detail: in The 1970's the famous author Astrid Lindgren hat to pay 98% income tax. being a socialist, she did not object - the 2% left to her was enough to live a modest comfortable life. But then she had to pay 102% - that was too much, even for her. She published a series of satiric articles in a newspaper, this and other reasons had the effect that the social democrats lost the next election. This ended the socialist's rule in Sweden.

So you really think that socialist is the wrong term for a country where rich people had to pay up to 100% income tax (even if we disregard the 102%)? WEhich was the financial base for a strong welfare system?

The difference between socialism and communism is politics, not economy.

Within Marx's scheme, socialism was the first phase after a successful world revolution, when the victorious majority oppressed the dangerous old ruling class (dictatorship of the proletariat), but when the need for this ended, the society would develop into a peaceful anarchy, called communism.

In the late 19th century, it turned out that the prediction of Marx were wrong. Many socialist leaders apprehended that a turn into a socialist society might be come through reforms, not violent revolution. One of the opponents to such »revisionism« was Lenin, who presented a quite different revision of Marx: The social reforms in modern states like UK or Germany were explained as a sort of bribe to a privileged skilled labor class, financed by imperialism, so there was still a need for a world revolution. To ensure this revolution would be successful, Lenin propagated the leading role of the worker's party - Trotsky called this »dictatorship over the proletariat«.

During WWI, Lenin and Trotsky became allies, in 1917 they established this dictatorship of a minority over the majority in Russia - the first communist state. This marked the break between communists - aka Marxist-Leninist - and socialists. The socialists revived the International organization (Second International), the communists founded the Third International (aka Comintern), later the Trotskiists founded the Fourth International.

So a communist state is ruled by a communist party, always by dictatorship, while socialist parties typically ruled as a result of won elections - either alone (as the labour party in the UK) or in a coalition (e.g. SPD in Germany). Almost (or literally?) every country in western Europe had some socialist government for some time.

Economically, both socialists and communists showed different approaches. Lenin in the USSR and Deng in China allowed private economy, Stalin, or Mao, enforced collectivism. In the UK, there was socialization of large industry sectors, this never was theme in Western Germany (apart from small leftist groups). So it is hard to describe an economic difference.

Ok....so you don't understand what socialism or communism is apart from their political descriptions. You don't know what these words mean....economically.

I cannot read anything of progressive tax there, but rather about proportional tax, i.e. the same relation (say, 10%) for rich and poor.

Smith argued that taxes should be proportional to how much a person benefits from living in society. There should be proportionality across levels of income and sources of income such as rent, profit, and wages.


It's unclear where you got flat tax from that....perhaps you simply don't know what you're talking about.

It would be more interesting whether the concept of »additional value« (cf. VAT) was taken from Smith.

Labor theory of value - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Anyway , this is one of the things Smith got more wrong than right.

Marx did not claim to have coined the term value of labor, but said that he was the first who could define and calculate that worth.

And he was embarrassed by a nobody who challenged that idea by asking....

"If I made mud pies all day, what's the value of my labor"?

More probably that they look o9nly for their own benefit, in other words: They are greedy.

There's no upside to telling you or the general public how economics works....

With that in mind, there are very few popular economists who dispute much of Adam Smith in a way that benefits the workers....not the owners.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I will only say one thing, the core of socialism in China is still capitalism

China is at most....the least controlling form of socialism. It's closer to the national socialist model of economics.

 

[Helmut-WK]

As a foreigner, I am shocked that you know so much about China

A person that is interested in information about persecuted Christians collects many information about many countries over the time. As to China, it began with biographies of Ni To-Sheng (aka Watchman Nee), after the end of the so-called cultural revolution, plenty of information from China was accessible - from Open Doors to secular media.

 

[Helmut-WK]

Then he's a capitalist. He's not paying workers with promises.

He has no capital, he can hardly accumulate capital, therefore he is no capitalist.

Monopoly : Meaning and Kinds | Managerial Economics

Let us make an in-depth study of monopoly:- 1. Meaning and Definition of Monopoly 2. Kinds of Monopoly. Meaning and Definition of Monopoly: "Monopoly is made of two words—'Mono' and 'Poly'. 'Mono' means single and 'Poly' means seller. Thus, 'Monopoly refers to a market situation where one firm...

www.economicsdiscussion.net

Quote from that webpage:

In other words, Monopoly is a market situation in which there is only one seller of a product with barriers to entry of others.

A guild was not a single seller, but rather a group of sellers, with some competition between them.

Ok....so you don't understand what socialism or communism is apart from their political descriptions. You don't know what these words mean....economically.

Meaning according to whom? I explained the meaning of these words by Marx, and mentioned the overlapping range of economy under different socialist and communist government.

I looked into practice (reality). You derive your meaning of these words from which theory/ideology?

Smith argued that taxes should be proportional to how much a person benefits from living in society. There should be proportionality across levels of income and sources of income such as rent, profit, and wages.

It's unclear where you got flat tax from that....perhaps you simply don't know what you're talking about.

The text you linked to argues against the same amount tax for everyone (capitation), Smith wanted a proportional tax (double benefit-double tax pay). I mentioned 10% as a possible proportion.

This is not the same as progressive tax (higher proportion of tax for larger income).

And he was embarrassed by a nobody who challenged that idea by asking....

"If I made mud pies all day, what's the value of my labor"?

I can't see the embarrassment in this question. If one sells mud pies, the value of his labor is the money he gets for them, subtracted by the costs for making them (maybe he has to buy the mud, certainly he has to wash his hands, cloth etc.). If the mud pies are never sold, there is no value in making them (according to economic theory of Marx, Smith etc.).

BTW: Do you know that some people in Haiti live by making mud-pies with dome flour in it? They are used to satisfy the hunger of persons that cannot buy bread.

There's no upside to telling you or the general public how economics works....

With that in mind, there are very few popular economists who dispute much of Adam Smith in a way that benefits the workers....not the owners.

 

[Helmut-WK]

China is at most....the least controlling form of socialism. It's closer to the national socialist model of economics.

Objection, your honor.
I'm German, and therefore I know that »national socialism« was no socialism. There has bees a wing within the Nazi party which stressed the socialist features, the most prominent parson was SA leader Roehm, he was murdered in 1934 to solve the dilemma that the army (Reichswehr) demanded the disarmament of the SA, while Röhm demanded more social reforms.
Hitler decided opportunistic: In the short run, he fulfilled the demands of the army (which did not want a paramilitary group at its side) by faking a Röhmputsch (in which many prominent »left national-socialists« were killed, e.g. Strasser who had split from the party in 1932). The »coup« was done by the SS, a sub-organization of the SA, which became independent, got more and more power in the long run, and the armed SS (Waffen-SS) became strong paramilitary group, even a second army.

The economy of the Nazi State was not socialist at all. There was some welfare-system, financed by the exploitation of Jews and occupied countries, and (last not least) by a growing national debt. A rich person that was neither Jew nor political opponent paid no extra tax because of Hitler …

 

[Ana the Ist]

He has no capital

How does he pay the workers?

Quote from that webpage:

A guild was not a single seller, but rather a group of sellers, with some competition between them.

Microsoft isn't a single seller....but it doesn't mean it's not a monopoly.

The guild is no different.

Meaning according to whom? I explained the meaning of these words by Marx, and mentioned the overlapping range of economy under different socialist and communist government.

No...you didn't.

Describe a socialist economy. It's most basic elements. Just give me that so we aren't wasting time.

The text you linked to argues against the same amount tax for everyone (capitation), Smith wanted a proportional tax (double benefit-double tax pay).

Then I provided the evidence you asked for.

This is not the same as progressive tax (higher proportion of tax for larger income).

Is the person making double paying double or not?

I can't see the embarrassment in this question. If one sells mud pies, the value of his labor is the money he gets for them

He doesn't get money for them....they're mud pies. They don't sell. Labor has no inherent value.

BTW: Do you know that some people in Haiti live by making mud-pies with dome flour in it?

Source?

 

[Ana the Ist]

The economy of the Nazi State was not socialist at all.

Then tell me what a socialist economy is.

 

[Helmut-WK]

How does he pay the workers?

From the money he gets when he sells the harvest. They were usually unmarried, so when he has no money they just eat with him …

Microsoft isn't a single seller....

How do you count? I never heard anything about competion between Microsoft and Microsoft …

The guild is no different.

When Mr. Gold and Mr. Smythe are both goldsmiths in a town, and compete with one another - this is the same as Microsoft? Really?

No...you didn't.

I explained the meanings in Karl Marx's work:

Within Marx's scheme, socialism was the first phase after a successful world revolution, when the victorious majority oppressed the dangerous old ruling class (dictatorship of the proletariat), but when the need for this ended, the society would develop into a peaceful anarchy, called communism.

I also mentioned the overlapping range of economy under different socialist and communist government:

Economically, both socialists and communists showed different approaches. Lenin in the USSR and Deng in China allowed private economy, Stalin, or Mao, enforced collectivism. In the UK, there was socialization of large industry sectors, this never was theme in Western Germany (apart from small leftist groups). So it is hard to describe an economic difference.

And now you tell me I did that not?!?

Describe a socialist economy.

When I compare the economy in Sweden and UK under socialist rule, the differences are so wide (and if a I add other countries with socialist government, like Tansania, the picture get even more aspects) that I think it is impossible to describe the »socialist economy«. There are quite different economies under the rule of socialist parties.

Another approach is, when a socilist develops a theory of socialist economy. Therefore I said

You derive your meaning of these words from which theory/ideology?

Without such a theory: I see no gain in a general description of »socialist economy«. If you want a theory, there is Marx, and maybe others. I'm no Marxist, I am not bound to any such theory.

Then I provided the evidence you asked for.

Evidence for a proportional tax (e.g. 10% of income for anyone). Progressive tax means, the riches pay a higher proportion of their income than the poor. Maybe from 20% to 40% (very poor people pay no income tax at all).

You dropped the term »flat« taxation. This may either denote the same amount of money (capitation, which was practiced in many European colonies), or it may denote the proportional tax demanded by Smith.

He doesn't get money for them....they're mud pies. They don't sell. Labor has no inherent value.

I gave you an example for mud pies who are sold.

Source?

A 5-minute report within a German TV magazin about Lehmkuchen, made from Lehm (mud,. or clay) and flour.

I do not remember whether it was on ARD, ZDF, 3Sat, arte, phoenix, Tagesschau-24 or maybe even another channel. One or two years ago.

EDIT:

I looked into the web for an English source, and found this:
When Eating Mud Pies Isn't Child's Play -
And I have to correct myself: There is no flour in the mud cakes …

 

[Ana the Ist]

From the money he gets

That would be capital.

How do you count?

I don't know how well you understand the corporate structure but not everyone's ideas get developed into products and positions are competetive.

When Mr. Gold and Mr. Smythe are both goldsmiths in a town

Is there a goldsmith guild?

I explained the meanings in Karl Marx's work:

Which one? His work on the Jewish Question?

And now you tell me I did that not?!?

I'm asking you for the basic elements of a socialist economy.

That's all.

It's not a lot....just explain what we can say about any socialist economy.

The reason I'm asking is that you don't seem to understand capitalism, and therefore, I doubt you understand socialism.

When I compare the economy in Sweden and UK under socialist rule,

Sweden and the UK aren't socialist.

Another approach is, when a socilist develops a theory of socialist economy. Therefore I said

I know what you said.

Without such a theory: I see no gain in a general description of »socialist economy«.

Are you suggesting that socialist economics doesn't exist without an underlying political theory?

Do you think economics and political theory are bound together somehow?

Evidence for a proportional tax (e.g. 10% of income for anyone).

That's not double then....it's still 10%. Quote the section you're pulling that from please.

I gave you an example for mud pies who are sold.

And I asked for a source.

You provided one from a Facebook article on a charity website. Do you have anything slightly more credible? It doesn't even mention anyone buying these.....just making and eating them.

A 5-minute report within a German TV magazin about Lehmkuchen, made from Lehm (mud,. or clay) and flour.

I do not remember whether it was on ARD, ZDF, 3Sat, arte, phoenix, Tagesschau-24 or maybe even another channel. One or two years ago.

EDIT:

I looked into the web for an English source, and found this:
When Eating Mud Pies Isn't Child's Play -
And I have to correct myself: There is no flour in the mud cakes …

Ok....so these are made and consumed, but not sold or bought. Anything else?

 

[Helmut-WK]

That would be capital.

Some cash that is spent immediately?

I don't know how well you understand the corporate structure but not everyone's ideas get developed into products and positions are competetive.

English is not my mother tongue, you lost me. What do you want to say?
My point was: If a customer has the choice to order either from A or from B, both craftsmen with no special relation to one another, this is competition between A and B.

Is there a goldsmith guild?

AFAIK there was one, a famous member was Gutenberg, who used his experience to work with lead to invent book-printing

Which one? His work on the Jewish Question?

Don't troll!

I'm asking you for the basic elements of a socialist economy.

times it is mere welfare state, …Define »socialist economy«. Without definition, I can say nothing. If we take »socialist economy is the economy in a country ruled by socialists«, I already said that they have not much in common. The socialists want a society with less poverty, sometimes they focus on socialization, sometimes it is mere welfare state, …

The reason I'm asking is that you don't seem to understand capitalism, and therefore, I doubt you understand socialism.

If you think you know more about it, tell me. And don't forget to point out which theory or ideology your understanding is based upon.

Sweden and the UK aren't socialist.

I talked about the time they were ruled by socialist. The UK has got a socialist government again …

Are you suggesting that socialist economics doesn't exist without an underlying political theory?

I said that the notion of »socialist economy« is based on a theory.

That's not double then....it's still 10%. Quote the section you're pulling that from please.

Smith argued that taxes should be proportional to how much a person benefits from living in society. There should be proportionality across levels of income and sources of income such as rent, profit, and wages. (your link!)

Double income, double tax - that's the principle (proportionality).
Higher taxes for luxury goods (which will make richer people play a higher proportion) is ok, but the principle is proportionality, no progressive tax.
It's all in the article you linked to.

And I asked for a source.

I said that I watched in in German TV.

You provided one from a Facebook article on a charity website.

Just do what I did: search for mud pies haiti.

And on TV, they showed a woman baking dozens of mud cakes and selling them to passerbies.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Some cash that is spent immediately?

Yes.

Definition of CAPITAL

of or conforming to the series A, B, C, etc. rather than a, b, c, etc.; being the seat of government; chief in importance or influence… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

(2)
: accumulated goods devoted to the production of other goods
(3)
: accumulated possessions calculated to bring in income

So by trading wealth for labor in anticipation of increased or sustained wealth....say it with me now....

He's engaging in capitalism.

English is not my mother tongue, you lost me. What do you want to say?
My point was: If a customer has the choice to order either from A or from B, both craftsmen with no special relation to one another, this is competition between A and B.

Ok....so are these goldsmiths in a guild together? If they are, what benefit would the guild provide?

That's what I'm asking....there's no hurry. Take your time.

AFAIK there was one

I'm referring to your hypothetical example.

Don't troll!

I'm not. I don't know what works of Marx you've read and The Communist Confession of Faith aka The Communist Manifesto is extremely short. I don't recall exactly how short but I remember it being a light 50 pages.

times it is mere welfare state, …Define »socialist economy«.

This distribution of taxes across the public good is done by every government and economy everywhere. There's no reason why a "welfare state" cannot be capitalist or should be described as socialist.

Without definition, I can say nothing.

Nothing at all?

If we take »socialist economy is the economy in a country ruled by socialists«,

Anyone can declare themselves a socialist (remember the Hitler example) but as you already conceded....he's not a socialist in your eyes.

What makes a socialist is a socialist economy. If you don't understand what that is....it's very strange to see you support it.

The socialists want a society with less poverty

Is there a society that wants more poverty?

If you think you know more about it, tell me.

I will. Relax. I'm making a point.

And don't forget to point out which theory or ideology your understanding is based upon.

It's not a theory. It's economics. The assessment of value and relation of trade.

I talked about the time they were ruled by socialist. The UK has got a socialist government again …

Again, anyone can declare themselves a socialist....it doesn't make it so.

I said that the notion of »socialist economy« is based on a theosound.

It's based in a concept of economics that doesn't exist because it's based on a concept of people that isn't true.

It still has identifiable features though.

Double income, double tax - that's the principle (proportionality).

So when you say "double tax" do you mean...

A guy making 100,000$ pays 10%.
A guy making 200,000$ pays 20%?

Or do they both pay 10%?

I said that I watched in in German TV.

Ok.

Just do what I did: search for mud pies haiti.

@Helmut-WK I'm not here to verify your claims. Nothing you provided me shows anyone selling or buying mud pies.

And on TV, they showed a woman baking dozens of mud cakes and selling them to passerbies.

Maybe so...but I'm inclined to believe that wasn't an honest transaction.

 

[Helmut-WK]

He's engaging in capitalism.

He is no entrepeneur.

Ok....so are these goldsmiths in a guild together? If they are, what benefit would the guild provide?

At least in a Zunft. Which in German can also be called a Gilde. It seems the proper English term is Corporation.

There has been a Zunft of goldsmiths. I know it because of the biography of Gutenberg. As to benefits, I'm not sure.

I'm referring to your hypothetical example.

You asked whether there was a guild (or corporation?) of goldsmiths. This is not hypothetical.

I don't know what works of Marx you've read and The Communist Confession of Faith aka The Communist Manifesto is extremely short. I don't recall exactly how short but I remember it being a light 50 pages.

Did you find any definition of socialist economy there?

This distribution of taxes across the public good is done by every government and economy everywhere.

I mentioned types of economy under socialist rule (you quoted only the extended welfare state) - is this the answer of my question what you mean by »socialist economy«?

Nothing at all?

What can I say about an undefined term (or, if you want to see it that way, a term defined by different people/ideologies etc. in quite different ways)?
Tell me the definition you accept, and I can say more.

Anyone can declare themselves a socialist (remember the Hitler example) but as you already conceded....he's not a socialist in your eyes.

He had no real interest in the working class, he destroyed the trade unions, he abolished democracy - what does this have to do with socialism (secomnd international etc.)?

What makes a socialist is a socialist economy. If you don't understand what that is....it's very strange to see you support it.

I have another notion of socialist.

Is there a society that wants more poverty?

Egoistic rich men can live with more poverty, as long as their profits get up.
Too much poverty will cause economic standstill (no consumers, no demand, unemployment, GNP goes down), but too much economic egalitarianism will also ruin the economy (no one invests when he will get no profit at all).

So there is an optimum in the middle, but to be precise, there is more than one optimum:

1. the point where there is least poverty in the land
2. the point where there is the highest (growth of) the GNP
3. the point where the big companies have the biggest profit

Noe add the uncertainty of predictions about the future economic »climate«, and you have the reasons why left and right don't agree about the optimal economy.

Socialists want the first, neo-liberals want the last optimum. The overall GNP per capita is higher in the USA as in Europe, but we have less poor people (at least in countries like Germany).

Again, anyone can declare themselves a socialist....it doesn't make it so.

But it makes a difference whether there is a connection to the idea of socialism, or whether it is mere pretending.

At least since the split between socialists and communists, socialism is linked to freedom. So I can tell that Hitler is mere pretending.

It still has identifiable features though.

So you have a theory what socialist economy is. Why don't you tell it?

So when you say "double tax" do you mean...

A guy making 100,000$ pays 10%.
A guy making 200,000$ pays 20%?

Or do they both pay 10%?

In the sentence you quoted: both pay 10% (10,000 vs. 20,000$)

Maybe so...but I'm inclined to believe that wasn't an honest transaction.

Haiti: Mud cakes become staple diet as cost of food soars beyond a family's reach

 

[Ana the Ist]

He is no entrepeneur.

You're moving the goalposts here.

He is a capitalist.

At least in a Zunft. Which in German can also be called a Gilde. It seems the proper English term is Corporation.

There has been a Zunft of goldsmiths. I know it because of the biography of Gutenberg. As to benefits, I'm not sure.

It's my understanding that price fixing and limited access was the primary motivation of the guild. You're correct that a patron may choose either of two master goldsmiths, for example, but he will be charged the same price from either....and the membership of the guild provides capital should work be unavailable.

This is a market failure typically associated with collaboration between businesses that compete in a free market....called price fixing. It's also easily done by a monopoly. It's one of many market failures addressed by Smith.

Did you find any definition of socialist economy there?

Does it matter? It's been a long time since I read it. Do I need to dig it out to know socialism?

It was socialists who commissioned the work from Marx....and demanded he change the title from the Communist Confession of Faith to the Communist Manifesto.

This was a smart move on their part...because the original title makes clear the ideological goals of communism aren't based upon reality but the faith in a potentially different one.

All you need to do is change human nature in everyone lol. The manifesto calls this change of human nature a change of "class consciousness".

Every attempt at this has failed, of course, because of several reasons....the most obvious being that the change in the nature of mankind....something shaped by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution...simply won't happen because of faith.

I mentioned types of economy under socialist rule (you quoted only the extended welfare state) - is this the answer of my question what you mean by »socialist economy«?

No....again, you seem to understand that claiming yourself a socialist doesn't make you so....anymore than claiming yourself wise or brave doesn't make you so. Perhaps these socialists genuinely believe they are socialists....but they have continued to manage capitalist economies.

This is the key difference between Smith and Marx. Smith considered man as he is....not what Smith wishes mankind would be....and then explained economics.

Marx considered the flaws in mankind, tells his faithful to be something they are not, because he believes it will create a utopia. His own contributions to the field of economics are rather slim and can probably be summed up in a short paragraph....once we strip away anything he owes to Smith.

Marx was a preacher....not an instructor. The Communist Manifesto does not include any blueprint or plans for creating the economy he wishes for.

This is why all attempts at communism begin....continue as....and ultimately end as dictatorships. As no post revolution instructions are included in the Manifesto....it's up to whomever wins the post revolution power struggle to figure it out on their own. I'm sure I don't have to explain just how ugly that becomes in the most successful cases.

What can I say about an undefined term

As communism is the ultimate goal or end-state of a socialist economy....it too demands mankind be something it isn't.

The general idea of moving from socialist to Communist must then be forced upon people against their will.

As such...we can say that a socialist economy at the very least is one where all possibility of ownership of property is limited by the government. It's true that there's a great degree of disagreement and a wide variety of ideas of just how much control must be imposed. The nazis essentially allowed relatively free markets to thrive until a need of the state was clear....and then private business is forced to comply with meeting the needs. That's how you got the Volkswagen if I recall correctly....as well as a rather notorious poison gas.

I have another notion of socialist.

Maybe you do....but if it doesn't include what I've stated above, it's not clear how it differs from Smiths.

Again, Smith never made any moral claims about the results of optimizing efficiency. He wrote another book nobody reads about morality and ethics. The Wealth of Nations is an exhaustive explanation of the persistent features of economics, the current changes he saw happening, and what he understood to be the flaws that prevented the success of business and it's remedies, downsides, and potential ways to avoid those downsides.

There's few books ever written that so accurately explained what would come to pass. He's about as close to a real prophet as the modern era will likely see.

Egoistic rich men can live with more poverty

I asked about societies....not rich men.

Too much poverty will cause economic standstill (no consumers, no demand, unemployment, GNP goes down), but too much economic egalitarianism will also ruin the economy (no one invests when he will get no profit at all).

It's good to see you at least grasp this relationship. The "invisible hand" which alters value and therefore prices due to supply and demand (and competition) is one of those economic rules which appears to have always held true.

I agree with you that the relationship of wealth to population size is another rule which has always held true. I'm not sure if Smith pointed this out (I'm fairly sure he did) but I can't recall if he named it or not. Many capitalists believe there is no upper limit to which a good or service can be priced....but I think as you do, if no one can buy it or will not indebt themselves for it....that limit surely exists.

Noe add the uncertainty of predictions about the future economic »climate«, and you have the reasons why left and right don't agree about the optimal economy.

I'm not an economist. I simply have read a lot of the topic and my background in political philosophy and it's relationship to economics gives me a very limited but fairly solid understanding of the basics. Economics is far more complicated than much that I know....mainly due to the pressures created by the insistence of perpetual growth in any market and increasing profits by any investors (or shareholders if you prefer) and I have serious doubts about the claims of Modern Monetary Theory and why those claims are made.

I understand your dissatisfaction with capitalism as it currently is...but the mistake of thinking we can adopt a model on faith in an idea of mankind that doesn't exist won't fix anything. The most obvious problem is that while governments are relatively able to regulate markets at the national level....they completely fail to do so at the global level. There is no global regulatory structure that would benefit everyone so it's creation seems very unlikely. I would offer as a solution the imposition of a type of control over those who have significant control of national economies.....mark a threshold of economic share by which the principle investors are then tied to one nation and one nation only....unable to flee it with their families should they have plundered the wealth of the nation to the point of imminent collapse. That way, anyone who exercises that much national control of an economy becomes tied to the future welfare of it's people. I hope that makes sense. We currently bail out large economic institutions and markets once they fail because the loss of them would collapse other economic markets. Those responsible can do this without fear of reprisal....and do this too often. That's because they see themselves as citizens of no nation and have multiple nations to flee to should our societies collapse if they choose to plunder it. It may sound draconian....but I think they and their families should be required to permanently reside in their nations....unable to flee (as the Russian oligarchs tried to recently) or give up their businesses and share of wealth in them to the government so the government can appoint a more responsible steward.

It may sound harsh...but at least it gives them the choice of their freedom or wealth. They shouldn't be allowed to plunder a people to the point of collapse and then live the rest of their days in a place more stable and safe. They should be legally tied to the nation they create their wealth in.

That's just the most obvious problem in the current economic situation. Too big to collapse is too big to not be accountable to the people affected by that collapse. There are, unfortunately, other very large problems I cannot imagine a solution to.

Socialists want the first, neo-liberals want the last optimum. The overall GNP per capita is higher in the USA as in Europe, but we have less poor people (at least in countries like Germany).

The situation here is becoming pretty dire I'm afraid. Far too much encroachment upon the public sector has been made by the private sector. We have the Austrian school of lasse faire economics to thank for that. They were extremely popular with big business because they promoted the idea of free markets solving everything or providing every service better than the government. It's not hard to see why this viewpoint would be pushed and promoted by big businesses themselves and opposing viewpoints harshly critiqued or outright silenced. Almost without fail...the prevailing view of economics since Smith has been pushed by those with the most wealth. That's basically ignoring the entire last half of The Wealth of Nations and Smith's view of the necessity of regulation. Good regulation is difficult and rarely successful without refinements so our politicians have avoided it far too often for far too long. They simply cannot afford to be seen as failures in the short time they have if they wish to be reelected....and good long term regulation often appears to be bad short term profitability. The politicians therefore concede to the desires of big corporations against the benefits of the people.

Did you know we have privately owned prisons here? Can you imagine anything more absurd? What possible comparison can be made between competiting prison options before those prisons are actually built? Given our current overcrowding of prisons....what possible incentive would a prison have to be effective or efficient instead of pocketing the most profit possible? It's not as if we can simply close them down and let the prisoners go.....so the public props them up anyway. The same can be said of heathcare....and I'm sure you noticed that the last president we had wanted to bail out the debtors to our colleges and universities... despite their inability to provide a product (education) worth the price they charge for it.

It's a system headed for collapse in my mind if we do not get major reforms fast.

But it makes a difference whether there is a connection to the idea of socialism, or whether it is mere pretending.

I've explained the idea of socialism above. It could potentially exist under anyone who declares themselves anything. In politics and economics, one has to look in the box to see what one is actually getting....not merely reading the label on the package.

At least since the split between socialists and communists, socialism is linked to freedom.

No...it's not. It's linked to collectivism. Unless you define "freedom" as a loss of agency, rights, autonomy, etc....for the benefit of a collective then I don't see any positive correlation between socialism and freedom.

Also I'm unfamiliar with whatever split you believe happened between socialists and communists. Communism can be considered the most zealous form of socialism wherein nothing private should be tolerated....including your beliefs and opinions. Proliferation of this idea has led to people losing their jobs over mildly offensive statements made outside the workplace (aka cancel culture). Communism ultimately demands everyone lies to each other lest they be punished for wrongthink. I think there's many reasonable socialists who see the problem with this....as it inhibits innovation and problem solving rather quickly. Interestingly, this is a political feature shared by fascists and simplified in the phrase "Everything of the state, for the state, and nothing outside the state" which I'm paraphrasing from Mussolini.

There's many communists who still hold the faith in their utopia and as they see anything capable of justifying it's pursuit....they'll call themselves socialists to hide. Interestingly, fascists aren't ashamed of who they are or what they believe typically and are honest about it....because they would rather remove anyone not on board with their program instead of forcing them to hide their true beliefs.

So you have a theory what socialist economy is. Why don't you tell it?

It's not my theory....it's the defining feature of socialism.

From what you seem to believe is socialism...it requires no change in the economy, only a change in the distribution of taxes across the public.

That's still capitalism.

Regardless, despite the dishonest Austrian school of economics....it's not as if they failed to identify anything true in economics. Mises identified why socialist economies cannot compete with capitalist economies because they are unable to identify changes in value in real time the way a free market can....and therefore, they are unable to adjust effectively to supply and demand. This is why socialist economies basically guarantee the emergence of numerous exploitative black markets hidden from government control, often just to meet basic needs.

In the sentence you quoted: both pay 10% (10,000 vs. 20,000$)

I didn't quote any sentence....I simply created a hypothetical. It seems like something you would have noticed that had you actually read the article I linked for you.

Haiti: Mud cakes become staple diet as cost of food soars beyond a family's reach

That's interesting. It doesn't mention the value of labor but it does mention the price of the mud pies (which appears insufficient to cover costs according to the poor woman making them)...so that should be enough for you to answer what Marx could not.

Can you tell me the value of the labor of the woman making these mud pies....where Marx couldn't?

 

[Helmut-WK]

He is a capitalist.

No. Capitalism implies big business, unless you mean a supporter of capitalism a capitalist is an entrepreneur with a growing enterprise, in contrast to a craftsman or peasant with a constant (not growing) economical activity.

It's my understanding that price fixing and limited access was the primary motivation of the guild.

The history section in German Wikipedia stresses the political power. Sometimes guilds were forbidden on order to protect the power of the money nobility (or the rich merchants which often dominated a town).

AFAIK, fixed prices were a somewhat later development.

Does it matter? It's been a long time since I read it. Do I need to dig it out to know socialism?

You stress the term socialist economy, I deny that there is a non-ideological basis to describe a »socialist economy« and ask for your definition (and the theory it is based upon). Now your questions seem to imply that you, as me, have no basis to define »socialist economy« in a consistent ans meaningful matter.

It was socialists who commissioned the work from Marx....and demanded he change the title from the Communist Confession of Faith to the Communist Manifesto.

This is the early history of socialism - before the split between communists ans socialists.

All you need to do is change human nature in everyone lol.

No, all you need is a revolution which will set free the good forces hidden in human nature … according to Marx etc. Once the constraints given in a capitalist society are gone (and the capitalists under the control of the dictatorship of the proletariat), everything will get better and better, the state becomes superfluous. »dies« away into a peaceful anarchy.

The manifesto calls this change of human nature a change of "class consciousness".

Class consciousness means the consciousness that clashes out of nationality, religion etc. are only by-products of the real struggle: Your enemy is not the worker in another country, but the one who exploits you so brutally. When all workers understand that they are one class, and the majority worldwide, world revolution will occur. And this liberation of the human nature will be the starting pount for a just socialist society evolving naturally into that peaceful anarchism called communism …

Every attempt at this has failed, of course, because of several reasons....the most obvious being that the change in the nature of mankind....something shaped by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution...simply won't happen because of faith.

It failed because the »conditions of production« (in the Marxist sense of the term) are not that basic as Marx believed. And because the real nature of man is not simply good.

Faith can change a person, e.g. make it possible to forgive the murder of one's husband (there are examples of this in the Christians' world!) - but a faith based on hatred can never produce such results.

No....again, you seem to understand that claiming yourself a socialist doesn't make you so....anymore than claiming yourself wise or brave doesn't make you so. Perhaps these socialists genuinely believe they are socialists....but they have continued to manage capitalist economies.

Socialism is a political movement. I still wait for your economical description which fits all facets of socialism.

This is the key difference between Smith and Marx. Smith considered man as he is....not what Smith wishes mankind would be....and then explained economics.

I would describe it somewhat different, but we agree that Smith was more realistic than Marx.

Marx was a preacher....not an instructor. The Communist Manifesto does not include any blueprint or plans for creating the economy he wishes for.

Perhaps the Capital is better suited to see his »plans« - but I never read it.

This is why all attempts at communism begin....continue as....and ultimately end as dictatorships.

This is due to Lenin. Non-Leninist socialism (socialism proper for my understanding) is not linked to dictatorship. Even when socialists were in the majority (as happened in the UK, in France, in Sweden, or in Portugal shortly after the overthrow of the Salazar regime), they allowed free elections and the change to a non-socialist government when such elections were lost.

As communism is the ultimate goal or end-state of a socialist economy....it too demands mankind be something it isn't.

Most socialists have abandoned this unrealistic goal. You seem to argue against the socialists a century ago (or even earlier!).

As such...we can say that a socialist economy at the very least is one where all possibility of ownership of property is limited by the government. It's true that there's a great degree of disagreement and a wide variety of ideas of just how much control must be imposed.

Often it is not the ownership as such, but rather the income which is constrained.

The nazis essentially allowed relatively free markets to thrive until a need of the state was clear....

Apart from throwing the Jews out of the economy (the first step to the extermination), they did change next to nothing. I already said they were no socialists. The constraints on the economy in WWII can be compared to those in WWI (and/or those in other countries), so they are no signs of socialism (was the Kaiser a socialist in 1915?).

and then private business is forced to comply with meeting the needs. That's how you got the Volkswagen if I recall correctly....

No German car producing company was forced to build the Volkswagen. Instead, a new company was created, which in the end formed the Volkswagen AG (AG=Aktiengesellschaft, stock corporation). The production of the Volkswagen, postponed because of the war, was only possible because no britisah or soviet company showed an interest to produce a car which was not fit for the market LOL.

as well as a rather notorious poison gas.

The gas was developed without any interfere from the Nazis. They wanted poison, and detected a poison for insects (disinfection of cloth) which had turned out to be even more poisonous for humans.

I asked about societies....not rich men.

You reacted to a sentence from me. I explained that your question was not aimed at what I had said.

It's good to see you at least grasp this relationship. The "invisible hand" which alters value and therefore prices due to supply and demand (and competition) is one of those economic rules which appears to have always held true.

I did not speak about the invisible hand. That »hand« leads to concentration of wealth, and to sporadically economic crises, when the demand goes down. To prevent such things, you have to constrain the economy.

I agree with you that the relationship of wealth to population size is another rule which has always held true. I'm not sure if Smith pointed this out (I'm fairly sure he did) but I can't recall if he named it or not.

Smith pointed out the invisible hand will in the very end give a bad result?
I'm rather sure Marx pointed that out (because I heard he described the »capitalist crisis cycle«, but I don't know any details).

I'm not an economist.

Nor am I. It seems you read more about economics in general than me. Most of what I read are actual cases, often in connection with my interest in politics and history.

The remark about uncertainty of predictions stems from an article which showed the famous unpredictability in weather (»butterfly effect«) exist also in the equations of economic theory.

I understand your dissatisfaction with capitalism as it currently is...

I am dissatisfied with the direction it takes (or, in other word, with neo-liberal theory). Capitalism, as I experienced it in West Germany before 1989, was quite good - but the idea of an ever growing economy made me skeptical. Up to a degree, the economy grew without much growth in energy consumption, so a »green« capitalism may avoid the catastrophe.

Do you think I'm a socialist? No, I only want to clear some wrong ideas about socialism.

I would offer as a solution the imposition of a type of control over those who have significant control of national economies.....mark a threshold of economic share by which the principle investors are then tied to one nation and one nation only....unable to flee it with their families should they have plundered the wealth of the nation to the point of imminent collapse.

Those you want to tie to a national economy are powerful enough to block that. It is a good theory, but it will not work.

The situation here is becoming pretty dire I'm afraid.

You are right, and this holds true for many countries, with some simplification: For the whole world.

Did you know we have privately owned prisons here?

I heard about that.

No...it's not. It's linked to collectivism.

Loosely.

Unless you define "freedom" as a loss of agency, rights, autonomy, etc....for the benefit of a collective then I don't see any positive correlation between socialism and freedom.

I stressed the difference to communism. Of course you can describe any regulation as a loss of freedom - you yourself want take away the freedom to run private-owned prisons …
Collectivism is a strong term, I want to restrict it to cases where it does more harm than benefit. I am for freedom of thought.

Also I'm unfamiliar with whatever split you believe happened between socialists and communists.

The First International broke apart in WWI, after the war the Second (Socialist) International and the Third International (aka Comintern) formed. This is a split. I know some details how it happened in the Russian party (though I don't know everything, maybe I overlooked some important details?) and how it happened in Germany (I'm rather confident that I know every important fact).

In Germany between the world wars, the socialist SPD and the communist KPD were enemies - the KPD called the SPD worse than the Nazis! After WWII the first chairman of the newborn SPD called the Communists »red painted Nazis« (rotlackierte Nazis).

Did you know the government which Lenin and Trotsky overthrew in 1917 was a coalition of several more or less socialist parties?

Interestingly, this is a political feature shared by fascists and simplified in the phrase "Everything of the state, for the state, and nothing outside the state" which I'm paraphrasing from Mussolini.

I just mention the term totalitarism.

It's not my theory....it's the defining feature of socialism.

According to whom? Who defined socialism in that way?

Regardless, despite the dishonest Austrian school of economics....it's not as if they failed to identify anything true in economics. Mises identified why socialist economies cannot compete with capitalist economies because they are unable to identify changes in value in real time the way a free market can....and therefore, they are unable to adjust effectively to supply and demand. This is why socialist economies basically guarantee the emergence of numerous exploitative black markets hidden from government control, often just to meet basic needs.

You(r source) define(s) socialism as an opposite to free market.

I didn't quote any sentence....

Let me quote:

(post #71)

Double income, double tax - that's the principle (proportionality).

So when you say "double tax" do you mean...

A guy making 100,000$ pays 10%.
A guy making 200,000$ pays 20%?

Or do they both pay 10%?

You see the sentence you quoted?
And as I have said: proportion means a fixed percentage.
I referred to the sentence you quoted from me because in another context »double tax« might mean something different.

Can you tell me the value of the labor of the woman making these mud pies....where Marx couldn't?

The approach of Marx is: the value of the labor is the money she gets by selling the cakes, minus the costs for producing them (does she have to buy some ingredients, does she have to pay a fee for selling goods on the street, …?).

Given the answers to the relevant questions, one can calculate this value. So where is the problem?

 

[Ana the Ist]

No. Capitalism implies big business

That's a meaningless term. Big business? Is that the most successful business near you or in the world?

You're just wrong, in fact....you're provably wrong. Let's take a look at Adam Smith's views on merchants and businesses....

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices." -The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith.

"Our merchants and masters complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price and lessening the sale of goods. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people." The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith.

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith.

"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith.

I understand that you probably haven't actually looked into these things....that you're probably a socialist who makes fun of capitalists who call everything socialist despite not understanding it yourself. "Planned economies" would have been all you had to say if you were able to identify the government as those with the final word on the planning.

Out of curiousity.....before you go about advocating for something....don't you think it's at least a little important to try and understand what it is you're advocating for and what you are advocating against? I'm not suggesting you would need to be an expert on this to discuss it...just the basics.

Wouldn't you agree?

You stress the term socialist economy, I deny that there is a non-ideological basis

You're wrong then.

I can certainly describe things according to an ideology... but I can also leave those elements out.

Consider the birth of a child. A religious person can certainly describe it as a miraculous event and gift from god....and the exact same person can describe it without any ideological context by simply telling you what happens in the process.

I was asking for any of the very basic elements of a socialist economy....and they exist.

You were asked for 1.

It's not my fault you couldn't answer.

This is the early history of socialism - before the split between communists ans socialists.

I'm familiar with the "split". The non-religious side of the argument disliked the term communism because of it's perceived religious connections to the word communion. They wanted to be called socialists. This isn't an ideological split....they still generally believed in the same thing.

If there's any real divergence it's that communism leans heavily into morality and righteousness with a sort of religious overtone that isn't subtle. That's the point of the Communist Manifesto. It's a religious tract to convince a large groups of foolish people to pursue socialism with a utopian heaven in mind as the end goal.

Class consciousness means the consciousness that clashes out of nationality, religion etc. are only by-products of the real struggle

Uh huh. If you don't mind me saying....your familiarity with communism and total lack of understanding of socialism or capitalism (or just economics in general) makes me think perhaps you're one of those covert communists pushing for "socialism".

If so....why hide it? I've seen communists come and go here....I'm sure there's no rule against them.

It failed because the »conditions of production« (in the Marxist sense of the term) are not that basic as Marx believed. And because the real nature of man is not simply good.

We don't have to speculate on man's nature. We can simply say it doesn't change upon suggestion and that severely constrains the possible number of social systems that will succeed for any time.

Faith can change a person

Maybe? I don't know. Plenty of Christians have faith in Jesus as their lord God, the Bible, and it's teachings.

As such they believe they are sinful creatures in need of Jesus's forgiveness and should they receive it...they will avoid hell for their sinful nature.

It's my understanding that generally speaking....they believe that change from sinful creature to something better and suitable to be with God happens after they die, not before.

If faith is changing their nature, I haven't seen it....nor should I expect to.

Socialism is a political movement.

Then kindly keep your political movement away from economics and my private property.

Or do you agree with the fascists that everything is political?

I would describe it somewhat different, but we agree that Smith was more realistic than Marx.

Realistic and correct are the same in this context.
.

Perhaps the Capital is better suited to see his »plans« - but I never read it.

I know.

This is due to Lenin.

It's due to socialists. It's not as if nobody understands how this plays out on even a small scale. Commune after commune has been created in many places by many people and nobody has to destroy them from outside.....because they do not hold up inside. Even the simplest ones I know of....a couple dozen people on a farm and maybe a mill....and they tear the commune apart all on their own in a relatively short amount of time.

It's a first problem with socialism in even it's most basic forms. There is one and only one way to solve it...those who still hold the power of violence from the revolution must both....

1. Ensure that the public engage in their new labors.
2. Ensure that none take the fruits of that labor for themselves, as it's the property of the public.

Whether 1 person or a committee....it's always authoritarian/totalitarian. Don't blame Lenin. Don't blame Mao. Don't even blame Marx.

It never had to happen if everyone stopped to consider for a moment how economics works or how the changes they were advocating for would work.

Non-Leninist socialism (socialism proper for my understanding) is not linked to dictatorship.

Perhaps not in theory....but definitely in practice.

The difference between a correct social theory (as in a theory that accurately describes large groups of people in a particular way) and an incorrect one is demonstrated by how it turns out in practice.

It's not like socialism hasn't been tried on both small local scales and large national ones. The same thing happens with millions of people or 50.

Even when socialists were in the majority (as happened in the UK, in France, in Sweden, or in Portugal shortly after the overthrow of the Salazar regime), they allowed free elections and the change to a non-socialist government when suc elections were lost.

Well they typically don't follow any real socialist political agenda or they won't continue to get voted in (Biden pushed a slightly socialist political agenda and very few people wanted it once they realized what it meant) and if they push a socialist economy then it almost immediately means a decline in wealth....which again means that they're be voted out. I can only think of a few situations where they successfully managed to get voted into power through leverage of their numbers and allying with liberals foolish enough to bargain with them...that's where the term "useful idiots" comes from if you're curious. Once they have enough numbers....guess what? Outlawing political opponents and political indoctrination is typically their first moves....that way when they suspend free elections, it appears less suspicious because the majority of people will pretend to be in the party to avoid persecution from the party. I'll concede that's not necessarily a dictatorship but it is authoritarianism. I can't think of any politically socialist nation where the public gained any rights, freedoms....nor can I think of any where they didn't lose any rights or freedoms.

Most socialists have abandoned this unrealistic goal. You seem to argue against the socialists a century ago (or even earlier!).

Well that's an easy way to understand it. The reason they oppose free markets is because it would inevitably create wealth disparities and the accumulation of private property.

Often it is not the ownership as such, but rather the income which is constrained.

Ok...let's imagine for a moment that is true....

Let's imagine that I'm the best at trade, investing, and creating wealth in new markets that has ever lived....and I'm moving to one of your lovely socialist nations.

What is the maximum amount of income I can make in that nation before the government takes 100% of income above that allowable amount? A billion dollars a year? A trillion? What is the limit?

Apart from throwing the Jews out of the economy (the first step to the extermination), they did change next to nothing.

Before I bother to describe the multiple public works he began for the use of German citizens...I'm pretty sure the first thing he actually did was put public funds to work in the factories which were in disrepair, and filthy/dangerous conditions.

Quite literally the first public work was an improvement in the working conditions of the common factory workers.

I know that may be difficult to believe and I'm not trying to downplay the antisemitism of the nazis....but it's a bit foolish to imagine that antisemitism was the sole source of his popularity.

I already said they were no socialists. The constraints on the economy in WWII can be compared to those in WWI (and/or those in other countries), so they are no signs of socialism

I'm not aware of the US government's ability to force Ford motors to build tanks. I know they gave them incentives but as I understand it, the option to say no was real.

China exercises control over their top companies with the threat of literal disappearance from the public. I don't know if they throw celebrities and CEOs into holes or what....but I'm glad Jack Ma is still alive at least. Chinese citizens living abroad will see their families punished should they refuse to obey the CCP. This isn't really different from how the nazis ran things.

No German car producing company was forced to build the Volkswagen. Instead, a new company was created, which in the end formed the Volkswagen AG (AG=Aktiengesellschaft, stock corporation).

Yeah....that would be the government entering the private sector to fill a need that the private sector didn't fill. It's a bit strange over here to consider the government selling cars because that's not the point of a government....is Volkswagen still a public company owned by the state or has it transitioned to private ownership?

The gas was developed without any interfere from the Nazis. They wanted poison, and detected a poison for insects

Bruno Tesch - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The poison was created in California as a pesticide. I believe it's an early phosphorganate. It was replicated by German scientists for use in WW1 and after being outlawed....further refined by nazi scientists to use in the gas chambers. I'm sure it's manufacturing either happened at newly built factories funded by the state....or existing manufacturers directed by the state.

How old are you again? I don't want you to think I'm shaming you or anything by pointing these things out. It's not a condemnation of you or the German people who didn't do these things.

You reacted to a sentence from me. I explained that your question was not aimed at what I had said.

This is probably my fault then for not making myself clear enough. I'm certain your English is better than my German.

I did not speak about the invisible hand. That »hand« leads to concentration of wealth, and to sporadically economic crises, when the demand goes down.

When demand is far less than supply, prices fall. Again, this is part of basic economics as outlined by Smith.

Smith pointed out the invisible hand will in the very end give a bad result?

No....I believe that it was understood that accumulated wealth allows for an easier accumulation of wealth back in ancient Greece at least.

That's true of any system where you can own things.

Nor am I. It seems you read more about economics in general than me. Most of what I read are actual cases, often in connection with my interest in politics and history.

I understand that it can be very boring stuff to read. I'm the only person I know personally that read the wealth of nations. It's a long, tedious, and difficult text. It continually slides between practical application of trade in reality and philosophical implications of trade.

That said, if like most people you find economics boring, I'd suggest you find a non-socialist summary or primer or any kind of text or media that tries to explain the main points he makes regarding economics. He's basically to economics what Newton is to mathematics. The difference of course is that no one except the occasional homeless insane person believes that Newton was wrong about what claims he made. Economics has a human aspect that is fundamental to it....and that makes some claims less emotionally satisfying than people want them to be....but it doesn't make them wrong or even something that we can change.

The remark about uncertainty of predictions stems from an article

Economics isn't considered an exact science but when compared to other fields of study of human behavior....there's far more that economics has gotten correct than probably any other field than maybe psychology and advertising. Psychology is a lot more complicated than advertising....but if you want to influence large groups of people, talk to an advertiser....not a sociologist. In economics you have a clear goal....trade less for more. The problem is that anyone else who understands economics is trying to do the same.

I am dissatisfied with the direction it takes (or, in other word, with neo-liberal theory). Capitalism, as I experienced it in West Germany before 1989, was quite good - but the idea of an ever growing economy made me skeptical.

As it should. If this wasn't a zero sum game....nobody would have to go without. It is a zero sum game...and I'm not claiming new markets or opportunities won't be created....I'm saying at any time there's a finite amount of any resource of value, including labor.

The people claiming otherwise are either in denial, lying to convince you to share your gains, or ignorant.

Capitalism has market failures that Smith couldn't have possibly foresaw.

Collectivism is a strong term

Accurate though.

According to whom? Who defined socialism in that way?

You're asking me who the first socialist is?

You(r source) define(s) socialism as an opposite to free market.

It cannot merely be the distribution of taxes differently.

All governments do that.

 

[Helmut-WK]

That's a meaningless term. Big business? Is that the most successful business near you or in the world?

You are right that he line between big ans small business is fuzzy.

Capitalist was the term for those who used new technologies (often associated to the use of a steam engine) to build rather big factories. The did not hire an CEO, but run their company directly, enlarged it and accumulated a rather fast growing wealth. The most prototypical figures were of course the millionaires, then multi-millionaires like Rockefeller or Ford.

A small craftsman or farmer who did not expand was no such capitalist.

You're just wrong, in fact....you're provably wrong. Let's take a look at Adam Smith's views on merchants and businesses....

I can't see the connection to the question whether a traditional shoemaker or a small farmer was a capitalist or not.

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith.

OK, this was not in the link you showed to me. I took my conclusions from that.

Out of curiousity.....before you go about advocating for something....don't you think it's at least a little important to try and understand what it is you're advocating for and what you are advocating against? I'm not suggesting you would need to be an expert on this to discuss it...just the basics.

Wouldn't you agree?

Yes.

You're wrong then.

I can certainly describe things according to an ideology... but I can also leave those elements out.

Consider the birth of a child.

You are comparing apples to oranges. The birth of a child is something that happens in the material world (a »thing«, so to say). You would have to dig rather deep into philosophy to start a discussion what »birth of a child« means (in contrast to wrong notions what this term is about).

But what is »socialism«? We have the definition of Marx (isn't it ideological)? You may site other socialists, or opponents to the socialist movement, and give their definition - are they neutral?

I'm familiar with the "split". The non-religious side of the argument disliked the term communism because of it's perceived religious connections to the word communion. They wanted to be called socialists. This isn't an ideological split....they still generally believed in the same thing.

The split was on the use of reforms vs. revolution, on a democratic socialism vs. a dictatorship over the proletariat (or in communist terms: the leading role of the party in the dictatorship of the proletariat). Or to be practical: It was on the acceptance of vs. resistance to the bolshevik coup d'etat called »october revolution«.

You don't need to mention »religion« to describe it.

If there's any real divergence it's that communism leans heavily into morality and righteousness with a sort of religious overtone that isn't subtle. That's the point of the Communist Manifesto.

The Communist Manifesto was about 70 years before that split. While you can say (with some simplifications) that the split was between the camps marked with the names of Marx and Lassalle, which has joined in the late 19th century, you should not overlook the differences between Marx and Lenin.

Marx was a hater of God, a misanthropist, a radical, but the (unrealistic) vision he termed scientific was about a rather democratic future. Lenin started with the analysis that a revolution is not democratic and has to kill as many opponents as possible to be successful - in other words, he planned dictatorship with »mass terror«.

Uh huh. If you don't mind me saying....your familiarity with communism and total lack of understanding of socialism or capitalism (or just economics in general) makes me think perhaps you're one of those covert communists pushing for "socialism".

You should know your enemies, that's the source of my familiarity. Mostly from second-hand sources, not by reading the classics.

The Deutschlandfunk (my father regularly listened to features in that radio network), Richard Wurmbrand, and Alexander Solzhenitsyn made me immune to communism.

We don't have to speculate on man's nature.

I do not speculate, I speak from a biblical view (everyone is a sinner …).

It's my understanding that generally speaking....they believe that change from sinful creature to something better and suitable to be with God happens after they die, not before.

If there is no change at all in this world, this raises the doubt whether the faith is really what it claims to be - faith without work is dead (like a man who doesn't breathe is dead).

If faith is changing their nature, I haven't seen it....nor should I expect to.

Depends on what you mean by »nature«. We are still humans, no perfect sinless persons. But with the help from God we can overcome sin, not just being fgorgiven while sinning on and on.

Then kindly keep your political movement away from economics and my private property.

Socialism is not my movement. Green is more fitting to me than red (though I wear a red pullover these days - LOL). But the German green party has so much stress on LBTQ+ wokeness, that I will not vote for them in the coming elections.

Or do you agree with the fascists that everything is political?

New to me that this is specifically fascist.

»Everything is political« is used to point out that »non-political« may have a political consequence. If you are not voting, your missing vote influences the outcome of the election, for example.

The Confessing Church in Nazi Germany was no political opponent to the Nazis (some persons in there were opponents, but others not). But the insistence on biblical standards (e.g. the OT being Gods word »despite« its Jewish nature) made the clash with the Deutsche Christen movement and than with the Nazis inevitable. SDying that Jesus was a Jew out of the tribe of Judah was a political statement.

Commune after commune has been created in many places by many people and nobody has to destroy them from outside.....

There are situations where a »commune« fits in. Kibbutzim flourished in Palestine, and AFAIK there have been similar models at the border of Austria against the Ottomans. When, after the foundation of Israel, the times became more peaceful, many kibbuzim changed into a somewhat less socialist community.

Perhaps not in theory....but definitely in practice.

Give examples. I already gave counter-examples (and I can ass Israel with socialists being the main movement for several decades).

It's not like socialism hasn't been tried on both small local scales and large national ones. The same thing happens with millions of people or 50.

What about Acts 4:12ff? The so-called »communism of love« of the first christians?

(Biden pushed a slightly socialist political agenda and very few people wanted it once they realized what it meant)

Biden was less socialist than Roosevelt.

I can only think of a few situations where they successfully managed to get voted into power through leverage of their numbers and allying with liberals foolish enough to bargain with them...that's where the term "useful idiots" comes from if you're curious.

That term was coined by Lenin, not by a socialist.

Once they have enough numbers....guess what? Outlawing political opponents and political indoctrination is typically their first moves....that way when they suspend free elections, it appears less suspicious because the majority of people will pretend to be in the party to avoid persecution from the party.

See what happened in Sweden (1945-75). The socialists had enough numbers, and then?

Let's imagine that I'm the best at trade, investing, and creating wealth in new markets that has ever lived....and I'm moving to one of your lovely socialist nations.

What is the maximum amount of income I can make in that nation before the government takes 100% of income above that allowable amount? A billion dollars a year? A trillion? What is the limit?

Look into the tariffs of your hypothetical country. I know there has been such a limit in Sweden, for Lindgren was asked to pay 102% - but usually there is a maximum percentage. And as to Sweden - this is history.

Before I bother to describe the multiple public works he began for the use of German citizens...I'm pretty sure the first thing he actually did was put public funds to work in the factories which were in disrepair, and filthy/dangerous conditions.

Never heard about this.

I know that may be difficult to believe and I'm not trying to downplay the antisemitism of the nazis....but it's a bit foolish to imagine that antisemitism was the sole source of his popularity.

There were other sources. The anger about the outcome of WWI (the time the Germans got rid of the old government and hoped for a peace lite that promised by Wilson, the got a peace that was meant as a punishment explicitely). The stab-in-the-back-myth and the feelings connected to that. The fear of Communism. The hope that the Nazis woulds solve the unemployment problem. Maybe I missed one.

As to unemployment, Hitler was successful (partly due to what was done before he came to power).

I'm not aware of the US government's ability to force Ford motors to build tanks. I know they gave them incentives but as I understand it, the option to say no was real.

I rather thought of food ration cards and the like - yes, this is a rather European point of view.

China […] This isn't really different from how the nazis ran things.

Yeap.

Yeah....that would be the government entering the private sector to fill a need that the private sector didn't fill.

The Volkswagen AG and its predecessors were no state-owned company!

Bruno Tesch - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The poison was created in California as a pesticide.

Your Link doesn't mention California at all!

How old are you again?

66.
Just think - virtually no-one old enough to do anything that matters in those times is still alive and active on the net.

When demand is far less than supply, prices fall. Again, this is part of basic economics as outlined by Smith.

Falling prices in every sector means deflation, and hence an economic depression.

That said, if like most people you find economics boring, I'd suggest you find a non-socialist summary or primer or any kind of text or media that tries to explain the main points he makes regarding economics.

It seems you misunderstands me.

• I am a supporter of free market economy. Because this is the most effective way to satisfy demands.
• The problem is that unregulated market economy will cause economic inequality up to the point that, if we neglect individual exceptions, the riches become richer and the poor people poorer, with an economic crisis in the end.
• Too much regulation is also not good, we have to look for a golden compromise (as I pointed out, the »optimum« is different for different people)

The neo-liberals push for less taxes and less regulations, so since the 1980's things have gone worse.

Capitalism has market failures that Smith couldn't have possibly foresaw.

Agreed.

You're asking me who the first socialist is?

In essence, I ask why you feel entitled to say that this is socialism and that is not - this presupposes a definition of socialism. I observe socialism, a movement, socialist parties etc., governments that are lead by socialists etc.

You have a fixed definition, from which I infer you have a theory that defines socialism in an abstract (non-heuristic) way.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You are right that he line between big ans small business is fuzzy.

Capitalist was the term for those who used new technologies (often associated to the use of a steam engine) to build rather big factories. The did not hire an CEO, but run their company directly, enlarged it and accumulated a rather fast growing wealth. The most prototypical figures were of course the millionaires, then multi-millionaires like Rockefeller or Ford.

A small craftsman or farmer who did not expand was no such capitalist.

The idea is of a free market. You're free to push the ability of your business or labor to provide a good or service to the most people possible. If you're content with just working for yourself and your family....you are free to do that too.

I can't see the connection to the question whether a traditional shoemaker or a small farmer was a capitalist or not.

Above.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

Is that a German expression?

But what is »socialism«?

A planned economy wherein ultimate authority over property lies in the state.

The split was on the use of reforms vs. revolution, on a democratic socialism vs. a dictatorship over the proletariat

This is a disagreement over what methods to pursue a socialist state would succeed.

1 party says we should sneak in through the back door....and change things slowly from within.

The other says violent overthrow of the current order is necessary.

The problem is you're claiming that it's a split...despite having the exact same goals....the implementation of socialist economies.

The Communist Manifesto was about 70 years before that split. While you can say (with some simplifications) that the split was between the camps marked with the names of Marx and Lassalle, which has joined in the late 19th century, you should not overlook the differences between Marx and Lenin.

Preacher and choir boy. Lenin is the archetype of a socialist. Upper middle class stress of someday falling down the economic ladder while also being aware you can't quite hack it to make it to the top. You know how to get rid of Marxists? Hand em cash. Look at Black Lives Matter.

The Deutschlandfunk (my father regularly listened to features in that radio network), Richard Wurmbrand, and Alexander Solzhenitsyn made me immune to communism.

Oh boy...they are great at describing the insane conditions of living under it...but you would need to recognize a Marxist or socialist who calls themselves something else.

If there is no change at all in this world

Who said there isn't change? This is how societies fall. Consider every man, poor to wealthy only looking up at those with more. Eventually, when the game concludes, those at the bottom have no need nor desire to play, they know they've lost, those at the top think they're still playing, unaware that the rules will soon change.

Depends on what you mean by »nature«.

What we are...not what we may aspire to be. I have no problem with seeking improvement, but if it is an unrealistic or impossible standard....let it go.

Our police were consistently dropping crime rates here in the US until idiots were convinced they should be perfect all the time.

New to me that this is specifically fascist.

It's not, it's merely a feature fascists share with socialists. We can allow for freedom or demand control. Those are the fundamental political choices and they both have risks.

»Everything is political« is used to point out that »non-political« may have a political consequence. If you are not voting, your missing vote influences the outcome of the election, for example.

This is a naive idea. Imagine if we all stopped voting. It's our votes that legitimize the system. Should we all stop...who could claim to represent us? If they cannot even garner 50% who should claim to represent us?

There are situations where a »commune« fits in. Kibbutzim flourished in Palestine, and AFAIK there have been similar models at the border of Austria against the Ottomans. When, after the foundation of Israel, the times became more peaceful, many kibbuzim changed into a somewhat less socialist community.

It's been tried. It doesn't work. I will always consider my needs and those I love before anyone else. This is the nature of responsibility.

What about Acts 4:12ff? The so-called »communism of love« of the first christians?

How did that work out? Is it still up and running?

See what happened in Sweden (1945-75). The socialists had enough numbers, and then?

And? Sweden abandoned free markets? Or did they lie about being socialist?

Look into the tariffs of your hypothetical country. I know there has been such a limit in Sweden, for Lindgren was asked to pay 102% - but usually there is a maximum percentage.

Yeah...the Holodomor was a 100% tax on Ukrainian grain....millions starved with no escape.

And Stalin still needed slave labor. Black markets (capitalism) sprung up to fill the gaps the state failed to fill.

The Volkswagen AG and its predecessors were no state-owned company!

Ok...this contradicts what you said earlier.

Your Link doesn't mention California at all!

How many links do you want?

Falling prices in every sector means deflation, and hence an economic depression.

Too simple. Tvs and other expensive goods have fallen in cost over my lifetime. Commodification of the public sector and middleman scam economics are a bigger problem.

It seems you misunderstands me.

• I am a supporter of free market economy. Because this is the most effective way to satisfy demands.

If we can own property in such an economy, and we can trade with money, it's a capitalist economy.

• The problem is that unregulated market economy

I think it's far worse. I can't imagine a game anyone would play without a chance of winning and winning begets winning.

Agreed.

In essence, I ask why you feel entitled to say that this is socialism and that is not - this presupposes a definition of socialism. I observe socialism, a movement, socialist parties etc., governments that are lead by socialists etc.

The very nature of politics is hidden from you because it derives from your consent and therefore, you must be lied to. If it were a dictatorship or monarchy, perhaps it could be honest but only if it were stupid.

You have a fixed definition, from which I infer you have a theory that defines socialism

Along economic conditions, yes.

 

[Helmut-WK]

The idea is of a free market.

Capitalism cannot be reduced to free market.

Is that a German expression?

According to leo, it is an English expression. The German counterpart is »Äpfel mit Birnen vergleichen« (lit.: compare apples with pies).

A planned economy wherein ultimate authority over property lies in the state.

This is neither that which Marx predicted, nor what the socialist movement wants. But it is what the communists call socialism. Why do you use communist propaganda for your definition of »socialism«?
Marx did not speak of state-owned property, on the contrary, in his prediction socialism was the time when the state peaceful died away. Think of a factory as a shareholder company, where all employees (ans no-one other) hold a share of the company. This is socialism in the sense of Marx. Not a state bureaucracy where the bureaucrats don't care what the workers say.
Yugoslavia made some steps into that direction, but by and large, it was a communist dictatorship.

This is a disagreement over what methods to pursue a socialist state would succeed.

1 party says we should sneak in through the back door....and change things slowly from within.

The other says violent overthrow of the current order is necessary.

The problem is you're claiming that it's a split...despite having the exact same goals....the implementation of socialist economies.

You should not focus on economy alone. The socialist movement interpreted Marx as a half-democrat and went toward democracy. The communist interpreted Marx as a revolutionary and insisted on violence, Lenin took the consequence and insisted on a dictatorship over the proletariat.

Your claim of »the exact same goals« is simply nonsense.

You know how to get rid of Marxists?

We German know East Germany got rid of the communists, and the money given to the GDR government because of détente helped somewhat to prepare the ground, but far more important was Gorbachev who did not receive much money (and rather ruined Russia by his reforms).

Look at Black Lives Matter.

Any proof they were Marxists?

...but you would need to recognize a Marxist or socialist who calls themselves something else.

And you need to understand that not everyone accused of Marxism or Communism was a Marxist or Communist.

Or do you regard »one person - one vote« as a Marxist slogan?

Who said there isn't change? This is how societies fall.

At that poiunt, we talked about the change of men who live with Jesus. Not about societies.

Our police were consistently dropping crime rates here in the US until idiots were convinced they should be perfect all the time.

Any statistics that shows this?

It's not, it's merely a feature fascists share with socialists. We can allow for freedom or demand control.

What does that have to do with the notion that there are acts that a clearly non-political, or the contrary notion that even those acts have political consequences?

It's been tried. It doesn't work.

It worked, while the commune was a means to fight together against the enemy. You cannot say it doesn't work when we have historical examples that it worked.

I argue from practice, you use an ideological view, taken from communist propaganda (your definition of socialism), and from an anti-communism that sees only black and white, and not the rather complex facts in real life and history.

How did that work out? Is it still up and running?

See Acts 5, as to how it worked, and to Acts 7 and 8 how it was stopped.

And? Sweden abandoned free markets? Or did they lie about being socialist?

Socialism is not incompatible to free market. Only what Communists call socialism, but I decided not to use communist propaganda.

Yeah...the Holodomor was a 100% tax on Ukrainian grain....

No, that was a deliberate punishment for resistance to Stalin, Ukrainian communists against the russification of the Ukrainian republic, and the peasant's resistance to collectivization.

Falling prices in every sector means deflation, and hence an economic depression.

Too simple. Tvs and other expensive goods have fallen in cost over my lifetime.

I wrote about falling prices in every sector, and you counter with an example of some falling prices …

If we can own property in such an economy, and we can trade with money, it's a capitalist economy.

No. Capitalism is linked to concentration of capital, so that the rich ones dominate the society.
Free market in a society with limited gab between rich and poor people is no capitalism.

The very nature of politics is hidden from you

Or from you … I perceive someone who does not see some facts because they are against his world-view.

This reminds me … the »Racing Reporter« E. Kisch described in 1933 Jew in Western Europe (I forgot, which city he was in) that tried to mobilize the public against the newly Nazi regime in Germany. And he ridiculed them - for he was sure the Nazis were just making a deal with the rich Jews against the poor (Jews and non-Jews). For he, as a communist, knew the nature of politics, which was hidden from those Jews who had fled from Germany, and to their fellow-Jews.

You are no Communist, you have another ideology - but the basic attitude is the same: You feel enlighted, and facts to the contrary are dismissed or neglected.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Capitalism cannot be reduced to free market.

It can. That's the simplest description.

This is neither that which Marx predicted, nor what the socialist movement wants. But it is what the communists call socialism. Why do you use communist propaganda for your definition of »socialism«?

You described a socialist/communist split over methods....not goals.

Marx did not speak of state-owned property, on the contrary, in his prediction socialism was the time when the state peaceful died away.

Yeah, it's the religious belief in a utopia created by socialism.

Think of a factory as a shareholder company, where all employees (ans no-one other) hold a share of the company.

Think of people as the means of production....because that's how it plays out.

You should not focus on economy alone.

I think you need to focus on it more....it's the goal. Anything in between is arbitrary to a real socialist.

Your claim of »the exact same goals« is simply nonsense.

Sure....you're the one who doesn't seem to understand either description of economics.

We German know East Germany got rid of the communists,

I bet you believe that.

Any proof they were Marxists?

Yeah...both in their words and deeds.

And you need to understand that not everyone accused of Marxism or Communism was a Marxist or Communist.

Many are useful idiots who think they're working toward a democracy.

Any statistics that shows this?

Yes.

What does that have to do with the notion that there are acts that a clearly non-political, or the contrary notion that even those acts have political consequences?

I'm simply pointing out who tends to believe the latter.

It worked

Where is it then?

I argue from practice

Practice of what lol? Don't tell me socialism....you can't even describe it. How could you know if it is in practice?

Socialism is not incompatible to free market.

That's exactly what it is. Explain a socialist free market....just try.

No, that was a deliberate punishment for resistance to Stalin, Ukrainian communists against the russification of the Ukrainian republic, and the peasant's resistance to collectivization.

Again....you can see the control over the means of production (the Ukrainian people) and it's brutal nature.

I wrote about falling prices in every sector, and you counter with an example of some falling prices …

Did you actually mention every sector?

No.

Yup.

Or from you … I perceive someone who does not see some facts because they are against his world-view.

It's not my worldview. It's how the guy who came up with capitalism described it. It's the foundational economics of every nation that uses money.

You are no Communist, you have another ideology - but the basic attitude is the same: You feel enlighted, and facts to the contrary are dismissed or neglected.

Only one of us came here with zero understanding of economics.

I can see why that might look like "enlightenment" to you.

 

[Helmut-WK]

It can. That's the simplest description.

But it is the wrong description.

You described a socialist/communist split over methods....not goals.

Democracy and tyranny are methods, not goals? Are you serious?

Yeah, it's the religious belief in a utopia created by socialism.

I already made clear I am no Marxist.

Think of people as the means of production....because that's how it plays out.

No, this is the communist distortion. Think of Sweden!

I think you need to focus on it more....it's the goal. Anything in between is arbitrary to a real socialist.

If you consider only communists as real socialist, I reply with a sentence from the German socialist Kurt Schumacher: Communists are red-painted Nazis.
So, please, stop repeating communist propaganda. Real socialists are democratic anti-communists.

It is a rather simple matter: For you, adherents to communist ideology are real socialists, I call members of the socialist movement real socialists.

I prefer to define »socialism« in the way the socialists use it, you define it in the way the communists use it. This is repeating communist propaganda.

Sure....you're the one who doesn't seem to understand either description of economics.

I showed you a split on the questions how the society should be organized: democratic or as a dictatorship. You change the topic by pointing to economics.

Even if we look into that: Most socialists would prefer socialization over nationalization. And even we we look to socialists who used nationalization (as the Labour Party in the UK), this was not followed by installing a 5-year bureaucracy or anything like that.

I bet you believe that.

Is this an allusion to the BSW and how the CDU is ready to make an arrangement with that party?

Yeah...both in their words and deeds.

Your words show that you don't want to let black people have the same right to voting as white people.

Yes.

No. If there were such statistics, you would have shown one to me.

I'm simply pointing out who tends to believe the latter.

You are wrong. It is not a matter of beleiving, it is a matter of recognizing interdependencies.

Where is it then?

When the circumstances in which such a community worked were gone, it stopped working.

Practice of what lol? Don't tell me socialism....you can't even describe it. How could you know if it is in practice?

As to socialism: The word has a history, because the socialist movement is not uniform.

I referred to countries that were governed by socialists (UK, Sweden) which showed that your description of socialism is wrong and simply communist propaganda. I pointed to examples where communities worked which can be describes as »communist«» (in the pre-marxian meaning of that word) and even stated the conditions that made it work.

This I call practice.

That's exactly what it is. Explain a socialist free market....just try.

Yugoslavia: A rather free market of companies owned by the workers. No 5-year-plan or any bureaucracy like that. Again, I refer to practice: An example which existed in space and time.

The problem of Yugoslavia was the animosity between the different people forced to live in one state (and this was the perfect pretext for the »neutral« Tito to maintain his power as head of state). Tito was less evil than Stalin, but nevertheless he was a dictator.

Again....you can see the control over the means of production (the Ukrainian people) and it's brutal nature.

You don't need to teach me what communism is.

Did you actually mention every sector?

Let me quote myself:

Falling prices in every sector means deflation, and hence an economic depression.

This happened in 1929 …

Yes, I meant every sector.

It's not my worldview. It's how the guy who came up with capitalism described it. It's the foundational economics of every nation that uses money.

LOL, You said the nature of politics was hidden to me, and again you change the theme to economics.

It looks as if you make the same mistake as Marx: Reduction of politics to economics. But even a superficial look on the history of the USSR shows that the communists had almost no economic power (so the basic problem of Marx was solved), but Stalin got unlimited political power (which made the situation worse than the 19th century).

Politics is not primarily a matter of economics, but a matter of power. This maybe economic power, but if you neglect other kinds of power you will never understand the whole picture.