Who has been the beneficiary of that success? Certainly not the lower class. Large swaths of the Chinese population live in complete destitution. Real economic progress should bring up the standard of living for all people. In China, they destroy buildings so they can rebuild them and get a higher GDP, but it's all done on the backs of the poor.

6/23/2011 1:51:38 PM

^ Absolutely, but that is because of China's restrictions on worker movement, restrictions they themselves say they are gradually phasing out. As such, it is just a matter of time until workers gains do trickle down to everyone.

That said, the Chinese government is wildly incompetent yet maintains a monopoly on many important aspects of the Chinese economy. While this is and will keep the Chinese poorer than they should be, not all government policies are daft and are a dramatic improvement over the "communism" that came before.

6/23/2011 2:10:15 PM

I need to recover for a couple of hours. It appeared for a moment that a McDanger/destroyer vs. Kris/Lonesnark argument might emerge. The world is upside down and I'm clocking out.

6/23/2011 2:28:02 PM

Quote :

"Who has been the beneficiary of that success? Certainly not the lower class."

Where does this idea come from? I hear it quite frequently, yet it seems completely made up. China's average quality of life has steadily been improving, and their inequality measures are better than the US. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality)

Compare them to somewhere like India and it becomes very obvious that you simply want to detract from china any way you can.

Quote :

"That said, the Chinese government is wildly incompetent yet maintains a monopoly on many important aspects of the Chinese economy. While this is and will keep the Chinese poorer than they should be, not all government policies are daft and are a dramatic improvement over the "communism" that came before."

People like me would argue that the government taking such an active role in it's economy has helped foster it's growth so it has managed to stay so far ahead of somewhere like India.

6/23/2011 6:03:46 PM

http://ifg.org/pdf/FinalChinaReport.pdf

Seen this?

6/24/2011 8:47:51 AM

2003 huh?

6/24/2011 11:54:22 AM

I'm not claiming it's a guide to right-this-minute, but since the last 20 years and the effects of privatization were under discussion it's a good leaping-off-point for a discussion of those issues.

[Edited on June 24, 2011 at 1:07 PM. Reason : So, did you read it?]

6/24/2011 1:07:43 PM

Look, I'm open to any argument that can be supported with at least a link and a money quote. If there is literally no authority or study out there that can boil down the idea that "capitalist in China have caused a worsening of living standard since China was allowed in the WTO" into a pretty basic nutshell for you to refer to, then I'm simply not going to just take your word for it as any sort of authority you may think you are.

It's is my (possibly extremely ignorant) belief that the Chinese middle class is better off because of the virtues of capitalism. If you don't agree but you're counter-argument is "you're going to have to read all these works, all these studies, and once you've invested those hours I think we'll arrive at the same conclusion" I simply don't have time for that.

I guess I've just somehow come to a bad conclusion for some reason that arguments in TSB could easily be supported with actual fact without someone on the other side having to become an expert in the topic to discuss it.

6/24/2011 1:20:07 PM

Quote :

"It's is my (possibly extremely ignorant) belief that the Chinese middle class is better off because of the virtues of capitalism. If you don't agree but you're counter-argument is "you're going to have to read all these works, all these studies, and once you've invested those hours I think we'll arrive at the same conclusion" I simply don't have time for that."

The middle class is doing better, but there's a worsening state for the lowest class which is what he report I linked said. If you're not willing to at least thumb through it then you're going to have to stay ignorant, because I have no interest in summarizing it for you right now.

6/24/2011 1:37:29 PM

Quote :

"but there's a worsening state for the lowest class which is what he report I linked said."

Could you at least summarize how that can be? While many in China are being left behind on purpose by the Chinese Government imposing restrictions upon them, they are a shrinking minority.

But what would you have us do? The rise of capitalism is China's only possible means of development. Communism made things worse. China's standard of living did not recover to its 1930s level until well into the 60s.

If your point is that it is always possible for some to be suffering through a good thing, such as brick from the Berlin Wall landing on your foot, we can all agree with you. The citizens of China should do what they can to help their left behind brethren through charity or lobbying to lift the government's restrictions. Beyond that, your evidence calls for nothing more.

6/24/2011 2:03:40 PM

Quote :

"Could you at least summarize how that can be?"

Influx of foreign crops => lowered crop prices => farmers out of work => farmers get jobs in factories => workers protections repealed (including right to strike) => wages race to the bottom

Quote :

"While many in China are being left behind on purpose by the Chinese Government imposing restrictions upon them, they are a shrinking minority. "

A lot of it is the government simply spending more on urban issues. If anything you're right that the Chinese Government placing a restriction on their right to strike has caused the lowest class a lot of misery.

Quote :

"But what would you have us do? The rise of capitalism is China's only possible means of development. Communism made things worse. China's standard of living did not recover to its 1930s level until well into the 60s. "

Facts simply not in evidence; Mao's administration was obviously far from perfect, but the Chinese people saw their standard of living increase dramatically. Before the privatization kick in the 80's the extreme poor (being exploited for ridiculous hours in factories) had access to education and doctors; now that's not the case anymore.

Quote :

"If your point is that it is always possible for some to be suffering through a good thing, such as brick from the Berlin Wall landing on your foot, we can all agree with you. The citizens of China should do what they can to help their left behind brethren through charity or lobbying to lift the government's restrictions. Beyond that, your evidence calls for nothing more."

Haha how would you know? You clearly didn't consult "my evidence" nor any other. You're comparing the plight of millions of people as "a brick falling on your foot". Man you really make me sick, I really love the fact that as humanity progresses your herd thins. You remind me of oldschool conservative nutjobs from the 18th and 19th century

[Edited on June 24, 2011 at 2:29 PM. Reason : .]

6/24/2011 2:26:28 PM

Quote :

"Influx of foreign crops => lowered crop prices => farmers out of work => farmers get jobs in factories => workers protections repealed (including right to strike) => wages race to the bottom"

Foreign crops? Workers in China have not had a right to strike since the communists took over. The first thing they and all the world's communist states did was outlaw strikes. Try organizing a walk-out at a Cuban factory or back during the Soviet Union, both places where the only legal trade union was an arm of the government.

That said, we know your hypothetical is incomplete because wages in much of China are increasing at 20% per year, far outstripping inflation. Which is what we would expect as the rise of capitalism increased productivity by solving the principle/agent problem and increased competition from buyers of labor from a monopsony, the state being the only legal buyer of labor, to many hundreds of firms competing for labor.

Quote :

"Mao's administration was obviously far from perfect"

Mao's administration rendered the country too poor to feed itself, with millions starvings to death in the countryside. At the same time, Mao's administration also rendered the country ungovernable, with many hundreds of thousands suffering violent deaths from the breakdown of law and order.

6/24/2011 3:37:45 PM

Quote :

"Foreign crops? Workers in China have not had a right to strike since the communists took over. The first thing they and all the world's communist states did was outlaw strikes. Try organizing a walk-out at a Cuban factory or back during the Soviet Union, both places where the only legal trade union was an arm of the government."

I mean with free trade suddenly you have industrialized agriculture taking over and poorer farmers losing their ability to get by, thus adding them to the rolls for exploitable factory work. We've seen how that's worked out for them (better so for the middle class, though).

Your claims about the right to strike are factually incorrect and you could have avoided such a mistake by just using the internet that's right in front of you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China

I'll even find the sentence for you: "The right to strike was also dropped from the 1982 Constitution."

Quote :

"That said, we know your hypothetical is incomplete because wages in much of China are increasing at 20% per year, far outstripping inflation. Which is what we would expect as the rise of capitalism increased productivity by solving the principle/agent problem and increased competition from buyers of labor from a monopsony, the state being the only legal buyer of labor, to many hundreds of firms competing for labor. "

You're completely ignoring the first 20 years of privatization where wages raced to the bottom and the lowest class suffered the hardest. "Wages are increasing at 20% per year" what -- the average? Nobody's addressing averages here, we're addressing the clump at the very bottom that constitute a distinct group.

Your view of the competitive situation in China is fucking perverse; more thought experiments?

Like what bullshit distortion of 18th century thinking will you trot out this time? A population-theory argument that the poor will permanently stay in that state, or more invisible handle voodoo?

[Edited on June 24, 2011 at 4:23 PM. Reason : .]

6/24/2011 4:19:36 PM

Quote :

"Your claims about the right to strike are factually incorrect and you could have avoided such a mistake by just using the internet that's right in front of you:"

Same to you. The right to strike was apparently part of the 1978 constitution which was removed in 1982. So, for four years the Chinese constitution allowed strikes by state-run unions, as legislation prohibited the formation of all but state-run unions. I wonder if anyone ever availed themselves of this right. After-all, even if the government doesn't shoot you, as Mao was prone to do, or imprison you for "depriving the state of your labor services", the only legal employer is the government, so if the strike goes badly the government can always refuse to employ you, as Mao was also prone to do, leaving your family to starve in the street.

Quote :

"You're completely ignoring the first 20 years of privatization where wages raced to the bottom and the lowest class suffered the hardest."

Fine. Like I said, it is always possible for a good thing to produce victims. Let me quote myself: "...what would you have us do? The rise of capitalism is China's only possible means of development. Communism had been worse.

If your point is that it is always possible for some to be suffering through a good thing, such as a brick from the Berlin Wall landing on your foot, we can all agree with you. The citizens of China should do what they can to help their left behind brethren through charity or lobbying to lift the government's restrictions. Beyond that, your evidence calls for nothing more." A return to Mao's rule with widespread starvation and lawlessness was not an acceptable response. Please give another.

I know what I would say if asked the question. If we assume you are correct and that life got worse in the short term for China's poorest, I would gladly accept a lost decade of capitalist poverty if it freed me or at least my children from communist poverty.

That said, I have heard this story, and you are wrong. The Chinese government runs the farming trade in China, and starting in the late 70s in response to continued food shortages they dramatically increased the price floor they paid farmers for farm products. This price increase, coupled with the dramatic increase in productivity that followed the privatization of farm land, increased the wages of China's rural poor significantly. Yes, as time passed inflation has eaten away these gains, but at the same time the restrictions on travel have been lifted so the workforce of the countryside has relocated the city, causing a labor shortage in the countryside and thus higher wages. They have not come close to keeping up with city wages, but no one would say they are worse off than their parents were.

6/25/2011 1:18:08 AM

Its funny how capitalists continue to pretend that financial motivation boosts creativity when all studies have shown opposite. Financial rewards put a stranglehold on creativity and intrinsic motivation and you have clowns (99%) chirping about how capitalism helps those things.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y&feature=relmfu

[Edited on June 26, 2011 at 11:02 PM. Reason : g]

6/26/2011 11:01:34 PM

Creative people are creative with our without money, it's just a matter of if they get recognition or not.

Capitalism selects for "marketable" creativity is all (Jersey Shore, etc).

6/26/2011 11:38:54 PM

^^^ Okay enough of this. More ignorance from you will drive me to write a fucking book on the subject and I have no desire. You are clearly unable or unwilling to honestly evaluate evidence. That being said we should move the thread away from your ignorant head-in-the-sand analysis of China and back to a discussion of socialism.

6/26/2011 11:45:43 PM

Only you would think it necessary to write a book, as if you were the first person to ever think up socialism. Or is it your belief that if only you could put your lump of half-truths and miss-characterizations in a book everyone would then finally take you at your word when you defend Mao's record, assert socialist China allowed unions to strike, or how you should be given political power to implement a system whose operation you cannot even describe?

Quote :

"Analysis of the Soviet economy should yield the conclusion that their system was not socialist in any meaningful sense, unless you simply consider "socialism" to be "the injection of any planning whatsoever"."

Also, McDanger, how does the Soviet Union not represent an example of state socialism (or coercive socialism as the libertarians say)?

6/27/2011 1:58:15 AM

Mao is a classic example of "good revolutionary/bad leader". He did a really bad job his political role, but he tends to get a worse wrap than he deserves. I don't think he had the worst intentions during the famine, I think he wanted to feed his people, but his mistakes coupled with the famines that existed elsewhere at the same times prevented him from doing so. Then faced with the choice of who to give food to, obviously he would feed friends before enemies. That's how I look at the famine.

Quote :

"The rise of capitalism is China's only possible means of development. Communism had been worse."

Ok, I'll bite. If communism has caused all these problems for China, why has it been so much more successful than India, who has not even messed with it? I believe the balance between the two approaches has lead to rise of China.

Quote :

"but no one would say they are worse off than their parents were."

It tends to be implied when you talk about how poor they are.

Quote :

"Also, McDanger, how does the Soviet Union not represent an example of state socialism (or coercive socialism as the libertarians say)?"

It's tough to give examples of socialism or to use them as a means to compare with one another. Socialism doesn't always work unless the government is smart enough to make it work. Certain industries will benefit with increased management while others will suffer for it. China is one that approached socialism the wrong way from the start but have slowly gotten way better at it.

6/27/2011 11:26:29 AM

I just haven't seen any kind of framework for how a capitalist society would reasonably transition to socialism. I've read the Communist Manifesto multiple times, but Marx does a piss poor job at explaining it.

It's just a very "pie in the sky" kind of theory. People are going to revolt, take over the facilities/machines responsible for producing goods, and then it seems like we'll just wing it from there. On one hand, socialism couldn't happen until people are very educated, but they're never going to get educated enough under our system. Socialist theory raises many more questions that it answers.

My position is that anarchy could not persist unless the general population has been engendered with a healthy respect for personal liberty, as well as disdain for the state, having been convinced by history that the state facilitated the most atrocious of crimes. Maybe there's some overlap there, as I'm certain I've heard "left libertarians" like Chomsky make the same point.

6/27/2011 12:14:01 PM

Quote :

"I just haven't seen any kind of framework for how a capitalist society would reasonably transition to socialism. I've read the Communist Manifesto multiple times, but Marx does a piss poor job at explaining it."

You can look at real world examples to see how several countries have made the transition. There are several different ways. Populist revolution (USSR/Cuba), Militarist revolution (China/NK/Vietnam), Democratic revolution (Venezuela), etc. You won't find any specifics about the technicalities in the Manifesto, that's not really what that book was about. That book was a pamphlet designed to get barely literate people empowered and motivated, not lay out the framework for a complicated economic system, for that you need to read the much larger, and more difficult "Das Kapital". However if you just want to know about transitioning to socialism, I'd recommend "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" by Engels. It gives extremely detailed yet practical answers to any questions you might have. Even still, reading Marx or Engels is kind of like using a 60 year old physics book, we know more now, some ideas have changed.

Quote :

"It's just a very "pie in the sky" kind of theory. People are going to revolt, take over the facilities/machines responsible for producing goods, and then it seems like we'll just wing it from there."

I don't think you should consider yourself an expert simply because you've read the "children's book of communism". It is extremely dated and was aimed at a much less educated crowd than you or I.

Quote :

"My position is that anarchy could not persist unless the general population has been engendered with a healthy respect for personal liberty"

And you bring in the paradox. How do you bring about this respect for liberty without any sort of organized body to do so? Anarchy would pretty much require that the natural state of things is anarchy, fortunately it is not. Humans organize themselves into groups, these groups become tribes, tribes become kingdoms, kingdoms become nations, and we're right back where we started.

6/27/2011 12:41:12 PM

Quote :

"You can look at real world examples to see how several countries have made the transition. There are several different ways. Populist revolution (USSR/Cuba), Militarist revolution (China/NK/Vietnam), Democratic revolution (Venezuela), etc. You won't find any specifics about the technicalities in the Manifesto, that's not really what that book was about. That book was a pamphlet designed to get barely literate people empowered and motivated, not lay out the framework for a complicated economic system, for that you need to read the much larger, and more difficult "Das Kapital". However if you just want to know about transitioning to socialism, I'd recommend "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" by Engels. It gives extremely detailed yet practical answers to any questions you might have. Even still, reading Marx or Engels is kind of like using a 60 year old physics book, we know more now, some ideas have changed."

The whole point is that those are not examples of socialism. McDanger made the point that supposed "examples" commonly held up by anti-socialists are just state capitalism combined with welfarism. If it was socialism, capital would be under democratic control, but it isn't. Statism + welfare + labor unions does not equal socialism.

Quote :

"And you bring in the paradox. How do you bring about this respect for liberty without any sort of organized body to do so? Anarchy would pretty much require that the natural state of things is anarchy, fortunately it is not. Humans organize themselves into groups, these groups become tribes, tribes become kingdoms, kingdoms become nations, and we're right back where we started."

The same way you bring about any permanent, lasting change in human civilization: from the bottom up. By changing minds at a "ground level." By not treating politics/world events as subjects that shouldn't be discussed in "polite society," but as topics that are vitally important to human progress. Most people don't care about externalities of U.S. policy, but I do, and I aim to make others care. I'm one person, but if I can help others understand the things that I have come to understand, then my efforts could have a much bigger impact than would be expected.

And, yes, I realize that this is wholly unsatisfying to many people here. You would rather impose values using the state. The entire basis of socialism, as it has been described by people that seem to have actually studied it, is that it would have to be initiated by the people, not the state. If it's initiated by the state, then it should not be called socialism, and in my opinion, it should not even be called free market capitalism.

[Edited on June 27, 2011 at 12:54 PM. Reason : ]

6/27/2011 12:54:23 PM

Quote :

"I just haven't seen any kind of framework for how a capitalist society would reasonably transition to socialism."

This complaint is wholly unfair, given that many countries made the transition, some of them peacefully. I guess it depends on your definition of socialism. Both India and Great Britain are democracies that went socialist in terms of the commanding heights of their economies, as Lenin called it. The transition was quite peaceful. The socialists won in fair elections and the old private owners were usually compensated something for their businesses out of the national treasury.

These countries also showed the peaceful transition out of socialism, as capitalists won fair elections and nationalized industries were sold off to private owners.

Quote :

"Ok, I'll bite. If communism has caused all these problems for China, why has it been so much more successful than India, who has not even messed with it? I believe the balance between the two approaches has lead to rise of China."

Easy, China has more thoroughly discarded national socialism than India has. India still has many of the institutions that China has done away with, such as import boards and the direct-government control over industrial and labor markets. For example, trade-unions wield immense government power in India, crushing the nation's manufacturing sector, China has no parallel institution crushing its manufacturing sector, as China's labor markets are largely free outside of a minimum wage and restrictions on inter-regional travel.

6/27/2011 1:04:40 PM

Quote :

"This complaint is wholly unfair, given that many countries made the transition, some of them peacefully. I guess it depends on your definition of socialism. Both India and Great Britain are democracies that went socialist in terms of the commanding heights of their economies, as Lenin called it. The transition was quite peaceful. The socialists won in fair elections and the old private owners were usually compensated something for their businesses out of the national treasury. These countries also showed the peaceful transition out of socialism, as capitalists won fair elections and nationalized industries were sold off to private owners. "

I don't consider state ownership of industry to be "public ownership." If it were public ownership, then the public would have a say in how those industries operate, but they don't - bureaucrats are the ones that manage production.

For the duration of the financial crisis, many have advocated the nationalization of banks. Does anyone really believe that these would be "public" institutions, in the same way that parks are "public"? Of course not. They'd be less transparent than ever, they'd be ruled by unaccountable bureaucrats, and most elected politicians would have very little say as far how those national banks were operated. The party leadership would draw up a bill (undoubtedly underwritten by the same lobbyists that stand to benefit from the deal), it would be passed with little discussion, and the Executive branch would be given free reign to implement the law.

[Edited on June 27, 2011 at 2:51 PM. Reason : ]

6/27/2011 2:49:18 PM

Quote :

"I don't consider state ownership of industry to be "public ownership." If it were public ownership, then the public would have a say in how those industries operate, but they don't - bureaucrats are the ones that manage production. "

What an odd definition. How can the public operate an industry? Are we going to hold a vote whenever a decision must be made? Such a system would be unworkable, you clearly need to hire someone to run it for the public. After-all, the shareholders own the corporation, but they don't run the damn thing, they elect people to run it for them.

6/27/2011 4:09:08 PM

If we're going to argue against socialism, then we should use the definition that socialist intellectuals use, rather than some definition that we create. I don't like when "free markets" are conflated with "corporatism," and even though I don't think socialism could occur under any circumstances, it still deserves the same respect.

Socialism, and anyone can step in and correct me on this, is when the laborers responsible for carrying out production using capital also own, collectively, the capital itself. Beyond that, I still have questions that I doubt can (or will) be answered: specifically, how we transition to true, worker-owned production on a global scale.

I think we're progressing towards a singularity where almost all production is automated. "Workers" are becoming less valuable, and economies are shifting to service-based models. I doubt we will have people, at least in substantial numbers, laboring in factories that mass produce clothes in, say, 250 years. Maybe a textile major could weigh in, but I doubt there is any part of the process that truly needs human hands.

If we are indeed moving away from human labor fueled industry to a human designed industrial model, then division of labor becomes more important. Division of labor is also necessary for the administration and operation of a productive enterprise. It does not make sense for a person that has spent years learning to code computer software to also be the one determining what a competitive wage should be for another unrelated position within the company; the coder simply doesn't know how much X an individual should receive for X amount of work.

[Edited on June 27, 2011 at 4:34 PM. Reason : ]

6/27/2011 4:34:03 PM

Life is messy and our technology does a bad job at handling messes. Human beings, which may be terrible when it comes to doing actual work, are alone on this planet when it comes to adaptability. As such, our machines will break down and need to be repaired by human beings or get confused and need to be guided by human beings. Because this is the case, a capitalist society with free labor markets will continue to function. Prices will fall quickly enough that either demand will rise to consume all the freed labor or workers will decide to work significantly less. If this were to no longer be the case, such as AI coupled with self healing and self replicating robots, then the system would indeed go out of whack and widespread charity or government intervention would be required.

Quote :

"Socialism, and anyone can step in and correct me on this, is when the laborers responsible for carrying out production using capital also own, collectively, the capital itself."

As discussed in this thread, that is indeed a form of socialism, but has its own descriptive term, such as worker cooperatives, to separate it from other forms of socialism with their own names, such as the state socialism so common in the 20th century.

6/27/2011 5:08:48 PM

Quote :

"Life is messy and our technology does a bad job at handling messes. Human beings, which may be terrible when it comes to doing actual work, are alone on this planet when it comes to adaptability. As such, our machines will break down and need to be repaired by human beings or get confused and need to be guided by human beings. Because this is the case, a capitalist society with free labor markets will continue to function. Prices will fall quickly enough that either demand will rise to consume all the freed labor or workers will decide to work significantly less. If this were to no longer be the case, such as AI coupled with self healing and self replicating robots, then the system would indeed go out of whack and widespread charity or government intervention would be required. "

Okay, sure, but you would at least admit that having entire assembly lines of unskilled laborers has become less necessary. We have rapidly advancing technology standards. I don't know, I'm not an engineer/scientist, but the trend certainly seems to be towards less unskilled labor. We need people that can operate advanced computer systems, not work an assembly line.

6/28/2011 12:54:55 AM

It is unclear why we are utilizing less unskilled labor. Clearly, yes, the old unskilled factories have closed, but the question is whether this was an unavoidable condition due to the demands of current technology (an unskilled factory worker is unproductive at any wage) or current political rulemaking (an unskilled factory worker is unproductive under current federal and state mandates). It may just be that unskilled factory workers are needed less and in order to keep their jobs needed to accept pay cuts, pay cuts rendered illegal by current legal arrangements with unions or perhaps the minimum wage. It is also possible the pay cuts materialized, keeping the industries profitable on paper but the workers found the new wages inferior to their alternate means of support, such as work in the service sector, government welfare, or the illegal sectors (drug production and distribution). Either way, labor markets will continue to function as long as the government lets them until the day AI is coupled with self repairing and self replicating robots.

6/28/2011 10:10:42 AM

Quote :

"Either way, labor markets will continue to function as long as the government lets them until the day AI is coupled with self repairing and self replicating robots."

Building and repair robots is not what I would consider unskilled labor.

6/28/2011 11:06:06 AM

Quote :

"Also, McDanger, how does the Soviet Union not represent an example of state socialism (or coercive socialism as the libertarians say)?"

I'm not denying it's state socialism. I'm saying that state socialism might as well be called "state capitalism". It's a single employer system.

Quote :

"I just haven't seen any kind of framework for how a capitalist society would reasonably transition to socialism."

Read "Workers' Councils" by Anton Pannekoek. If you'd like a PDF, send me a PM. It's an enjoyable read, and has a lot of history in it (not just arguments in favor of socialism).

As a fellow libertarian I think you'd really like the change in perspective. At the very least it's an interesting difference from libertarian capitalism.

Quote :

"The whole point is that those are not examples of socialism. McDanger made the point that supposed "examples" commonly held up by anti-socialists are just state capitalism combined with welfarism. If it was socialism, capital would be under democratic control, but it isn't. Statism + welfare + labor unions does not equal socialism."

<3

[Edited on June 30, 2011 at 8:43 PM. Reason : .]

6/30/2011 8:37:11 PM

Quote :

"I'm not denying it's state socialism. I'm saying that state socialism might as well be called "state capitalism". It's a single employer system."

Historians didn't use the phrase "Communism Incorporated" for nothing.

As long as all you want is the right to organize a worker cooperative, as currently exists under capitalism, so be it. But people's right to defend themselves and their property exceeds your right to organize the world as you see fit.

6/30/2011 11:15:23 PM

Quote :

"But people's right to defend themselves and their property exceeds your right to organize the world as you see fit."

Oh I agree totally, and that's why a worker's revolution will be morally justified when they snatch ownership away from capitalists.

You don't seem to have much historical perspective when it comes to private ownership of industry, but it's not some natural concept ingrained into the world. It's the extension of a convention for single-person tools to tools operated by collectives. All of the attempts to naturalize this concept are rooted in misuses of Darwinism.

[Edited on July 1, 2011 at 6:34 AM. Reason : .]

7/1/2011 6:32:13 AM

You are quite wrong. It is perhaps the most natural thing in the world that man is born without the tools he will use in life. It is only through his labor that he acquires tools, so it is demonstrably wrong when other people demand to take his tools away just because they want to use them.

The factory your workers want to call their own was not built by them. It was built by others, and until the others get paid the factory still belongs to them.

7/1/2011 10:25:28 AM

Quote :

"You are quite wrong. It is perhaps the most natural thing in the world that man is born without the tools he will use in life. It is only through his labor that he acquires tools, so it is demonstrably wrong when other people demand to take his tools away just because they want to use them. "

It's just as likely, perhaps more likely, that individuals acquire tools through privilege. I don't view wealth handed down from generation to generation as illegitimate or particularly wrong, but it does lead to concentration of wealth, which leads to a concentration of power, which is a problem that calls for solutions.

Obviously, the state as a solution isn't a solution at all, because the state is, by definition, concentration of power.

[Edited on July 1, 2011 at 12:25 PM. Reason : ]

7/1/2011 12:24:48 PM

Why does that call for solutions? The wealth of others does not harm me.

7/1/2011 1:41:26 PM

Quote :

"You are quite wrong. It is perhaps the most natural thing in the world that man is born without the tools he will use in life. It is only through his labor that he acquires tools, so it is demonstrably wrong when other people demand to take his tools away just because they want to use them."

Hmm no, it is you who is quite wrong. People acquire tools through means other than their own labor all the time, as destroyer pointed out. Are you seriously arguing this children's bedtime story as fact?

What do you stand to gain by being such a stooge for privilege you will never, ever, *ever* be included in?

Quote :

"The factory your workers want to call their own was not built by them. It was built by others, and until the others get paid the factory still belongs to them."

Yes, that's how it currently works. I'm sure there was a point in there somewhere.

Quote :

"Why does that call for solutions? The wealth of others does not harm me."

The wealth of others needn't harm you, but it might. And in the real world, it often can and does. Even if you were totally unaffected, there are billions of people world-wide with a different story. Not that I expect you to care, as Adam Smith did, about the effects of overconcentrated wealth and greed.

[Edited on July 1, 2011 at 1:51 PM. Reason : .]

7/1/2011 1:48:55 PM

Quote :

"Why does that call for solutions? The wealth of others does not harm me."

Because when power is concentrated, people (the elite) tend to use that power against others and for their own benefit. The entire nation-state system is built upon the foundation that some segment of the population has the other, less powerful segment held at gunpoint.

You're right that the wealth of others, by itself, does not harm me. However, when the power elite construct a financial system that, by design, benefits them and literally steals wealth from those out of power, we should aim to eliminate (not reform) that system.

On the subject of greed: it's natural, but greed can often lead to loss, as it should. Organizations or individuals should know that over-extension can mean loss; this is what we refer to as risk. Power structures today often remove that risk from the marketplace, either by creating virtual monopolies or actually rewarding bad decision making with free money.

[Edited on July 1, 2011 at 2:11 PM. Reason : ]

7/1/2011 2:08:46 PM

Quote :

"On the subject of greed: it's natural, but greed can often lead to loss, as it should. Organizations or individuals should know that over-extension can mean loss; this is what we refer to as risk. Power structures today often remove that risk from the marketplace, either by creating virtual monopolies or actually rewarding bad decision making with free money. "

I basically take Smith's line here: greed and selfishness are different. Greed will always exist (especially in marketplaces), and so it needs to be checked. Without checking greed (either through cultural/moral attitudes or through regulations), free markets don't produce equilibria that are beneficial to society as a whole. Smith acknowledged that, and I don't think he's been proven wrong by the history of capitalism.

7/1/2011 2:17:16 PM

Quote :

"I basically take Smith's line here: greed and selfishness are different."

Different, but related. Obviously, none of us get by with the bare minimum. Acquisition of resources (wealth) means less work and more fun/comfort/happiness later. Greed, I'm guessing, you would think of as the desire to acquire more (or much more) than is needed for survival or basic comfort, but since that's subjective, "greed" becomes very nebulous concept.

I would say that cultural/moral attitudes are what need to change if we expect to have a vibrant, free society. Regulations can be somewhat effective, but the regulators are not altruistic, so regulations will evolve in a such a way that some parties benefit more than others.

To clarify, a free market is literally a market without coercion. Stealing is wrong, whether it's done by a democratically elected government or a thief. I don't think there's a clean way to right the wrongs of the past, but we can at least avoid additional wrongs going forward.

[Edited on July 1, 2011 at 2:35 PM. Reason : ]

7/1/2011 2:30:05 PM

Quote :

"However, when the power elite construct a financial system that, by design, benefits them and literally steals wealth from those out of power, we should aim to eliminate (not reform) that system."

I agree. So attack that system which is causing the problem. Don't attack a whole class of people just because some of their rank has used their wealth to acquire political influence.

Quote :

"Not that I expect you to care, as Adam Smith did, about the effects of overconcentrated wealth and greed."

I do care. I am thankful every day to live in such a rational system of self interest and am deeply saddened that the only way much of the planet can partake in such a system is to swim, walk, or sneak into a free country. Such countries are far from perfect, I would run them differently, but they are sufficiently close to the good system to be acceptable.

As for privilege, I partake in the privilege every-day. I hired someone to fix my car out of their home for a mutually accepted wage. Years ago I signed a contract with a large corporation and threatened to sue them in court for breach of that contract because their workers screwed up. They settled. Per the rules of capitalism, big and small, we are all equal before the law. Because of democratic governance and even corruption this is not always so, but for the vast majority of daily life, setting foot into small claims court we are all indeed equal. I find that privilege very much beautiful.

So, McDanger, What do you stand to gain by being such a stooge for privilege you will never, ever, *ever* be included in? Do you seriously think your fellow workers will elect you to the workers council? You have nothing to gain from your system but enslavement to the majority, be it a small majority in one firm or the big majority attempting to achieve the impossible, a top-down planned economy.

I defend my system because it at least tries to leave me and others of like minds alone to plan our own lives with the little property we have. Under your system we would own nothing and be able to plan nothing without fearing interference from some institution you call a worker's council proclaiming our activities to be workplaces and appointing agents to seize the property from us at gunpoint because it looks too much like capitalism.

Quote :

"I basically take Smith's line here: greed and selfishness are different. Greed will always exist , and so it needs to be checked. Without checking greed (either through cultural/moral attitudes or through regulations), free markets don't produce equilibria that are beneficial to society as a whole."

citation needed. I read both Wealth and Theory back in the day and remember nothing of the sort. According to Smith, the only check needed against greed is individual liberty and the marketplace competition which results. "he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention...By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."

7/1/2011 3:10:28 PM

Quote :

"Different, but related. Obviously, none of us get by with the bare minimum. Acquisition of resources (wealth) means less work and more fun/comfort/happiness later. Greed, I'm guessing, you would think of as the desire to acquire more (or much more) than is needed for survival or basic comfort, but since that's subjective, "greed" becomes very nebulous concept."

I don't think it's greedy to want more than what you need to scrape by (or have basic comfort). I think it's quite sensible for people to seek after luxury; luxury, relaxation, and non-productive consumption aren't necessarily bad things. They're part of the point.

Quote :

"citation needed. I read both Wealth and Theory back in the day and remember nothing of the sort. According to Smith, the only check needed against greed is individual liberty and the marketplace competition which results. "he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention...By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.""

Nope this is wrong; you have basically bought the revisionist bullshit. I suggest you re-visit Smith himself. Here's my suggestion if you care what the man thought:

Read A Theory of Moral Sentiments. Then reread Wealth more carefully than you did before.

If Smith ever intended to change what he thought in TMS, he didn't take the opportunity to revise those beliefs in the multitude of times it was republished (even after Wealth was published). Wealth, on the other hand, saw a multitude of revisions as Smith's thought and presentation got clearer.

It really kills me when somebody says "according to Smith" in demonstrable and full ignorance of the man's opinions. He wrote them down. Stop taking other peoples' word for it.

[Edited on July 1, 2011 at 3:44 PM. Reason : .]

7/1/2011 3:16:00 PM

If you come back and tell me you have, in fact, read both of these carefully then either:

(1) You have a terrible memory
(2) You have a selective memory
(3) You did not comprehend what you read
(4) You read short selections for a class and essential parts of Smith's thought were left out

Smith's political and social thought are largely ripped away from his economic writings even though it's clear he didn't think about one topic without thinking about the other. If you reply and say none of 1-4 are the case then you are lying or trying to save face under the safe assumption that nobody here will ever investigate the issue for themselves.

If somewhere underneath your dishonesty you actually care to know what the man thought, read his works.

Personally, I would be humiliated if I pontificated about my intellectual heroes and was simply regurgitating inaccurate revisions of their work, so I don't blame the peurile reaction you're likely gearing up for. However, for the sake of accuracy and intellectual integrity, please stop spreading misinformation.

[Edited on July 1, 2011 at 3:54 PM. Reason : .]

7/1/2011 3:52:26 PM

I was addressing one sentence:
"Without checking greed (either through cultural/moral attitudes or through regulations), free markets don't produce equilibria that are beneficial to society as a whole."
This statement is contradicted by the exact quote I posted. As such, even if what you wrote was a quote of Smith, it would at best mean he was conflicted. As what you posted was not a quote, but something you admit you wrote, then we have only your word he was conflicted. Either way, it means he did not agree with you.

That said, Smith dedicated whole chapters to the concept of Justice and the odd situation where the application of justice often involves arresting and punishing the poorest among us, in effect enforcing unjust outcomes in the pursuit of a just society. Perhaps your prior-conceptions caused you to miss-understand the point of these chapters.

Quote :

"I don't think it's greedy to want more than what you need to scrape by (or have basic comfort). I think it's quite sensible for people to seek after luxury; luxury, relaxation, and non-productive consumption aren't necessarily bad things. They're part of the point."

But it is not sensible for people to attempt to steal such things. You should use your best whit and drive to convince others to give you such things freely, either in exchange or as charity, as you would want them to treat you if the roles were reversed.

[Edited on July 1, 2011 at 4:42 PM. Reason : .,.]

7/1/2011 4:37:54 PM

Quote :

""Without checking greed (either through cultural/moral attitudes or through regulations), free markets don't produce equilibria that are beneficial to society as a whole." This statement is contradicted by the exact quote I posted. As such, even if what you wrote was a quote of Smith, it would at best mean he was conflicted. As what you posted was not a quote, but something you admit you wrote, then we have only your word he was conflicted. Either way, it means he did not agree with you. "

It's so fucking depressing to see you quote one sentence in isolation of the rest of Smith's thought. I've read both books carefully. You haven't. You are wrong. Plenty of people (including the Chicago School stooges you have lifted this line of thinking from) have misquoted Smith by taking that single line in isolation from the rest of his thought. The notion is that selfishness CAN lead people to good results for society; Smith was disdainful of greed, however. If you had ever even mildly acquainted yourself with Smith, however, beyond your one or two stock quotes that everybody has already seen, then you'd know that you're misinterpreting him.

That being said I'm visiting my parents at the moment and my copies of both books are back in my library at home, so I'll have to wait until I get there to dig through it and grab the relevant quotes out and make a case for you. The depressing thing here is I know I'm right, because I just went back through Smith again within the last month. It's ridiculous you won't just do your own homework, but if I remember when I get back I'll be glad to spend the hour or two showing you just how fucking foolish you look to a person with a clue.

Quote :

"That said, Smith dedicated whole chapters to the concept of Justice and the odd situation where the application of justice often involves arresting and punishing the poorest among us, in effect enforcing unjust outcomes in the pursuit of a just society. Perhaps your prior-conceptions caused you to miss-understand the point of these chapters. "

Perhaps you haven't read the books that you claim you have because you do not know what you are talking about. Let me repeat again, because I'm sure that you know you don't know what you're saying: you are clueless. Re-acquaint yourself. I would be willing to stake money on this shit, because again, I went through Smith carefully in the last few weeks. You never read the books. It's obvious to me at this point, and holy fuck, you are one dishonest and pathetic little shit. You have no business talking about capitalism, Smith, or anything. This guy is supposed to be the Michael Jordan of your school of thought and you don't even know his number. Spend less time posting and more time learning the basics.

Christians don't read the Bible. Capitalists don't read Smith. Why the fuck am I surprised?

Quote :

"So, McDanger, What do you stand to gain by being such a stooge for privilege you will never, ever, *ever* be included in? Do you seriously think your fellow workers will elect you to the workers council? You have nothing to gain from your system but enslavement to the majority, be it a small majority in one firm or the big majority attempting to achieve the impossible, a top-down planned economy. "

Haha how the fuck do you still not understand what a workers council is? This quote presupposes that you lack the understanding that I all but boiled down for you a few pages before. Representatives of a workers' council are not office-holders, nor do they have any power, privilege, or authority. They represent the will of the workers from which they are chosen, serve in a communicative capacity only, cannot make decisions that flout democratic decision-making, and can be replaced at literally any moment. There's no privilege or authority to seize. Why would you even assume I'd want to be chosen to serve as a representative anyway? The fact that you still imagine that this is a top-down, authority-driven system means that you aren't reading what I'm saying, not comprehending any of the discussion at all. You are singularly holding back the quality of the discussion in this thread with your sheer fucking idiocy. You don't understand capitalism, socialism, workers councils, literally anything we've talked about in this thread. You've misrepresented Smith and humiliated yourself by demonstrating you don't understand his thought and have furthermore made an ass out of yourself by lying that you read his books (when it's clear to me and everybody else who has that you're simply playing a Chicago School stooge -- at least they got paid, what do you gain?).

[Edited on July 2, 2011 at 12:49 AM. Reason : .]

7/2/2011 12:42:50 AM

I need to make this point again: Smith appears inconsistent to people who are ignorant of his thought when his positions are revealed in isolation, via limited selections. He states them all but explicitly. The fact that you don't know them means you never passed your eyes over them. You would have been surprised, obviously. It seems like he's contradicting himself, but only because you haven't evaluated his thought as a whole. It's ridiculous that when I get home I'm going to have to spend a couple of hours pulling quotes and rereading section because you will be surfing the internet pontificating instead of reading quality sources of information.

If Smith could be boiled down to a few sentences he wouldn't have written entire books. Even bumping your hand against them would have rubbed off more knowledge than you're demonstrating now.

Edit: I was already a leftist when I began to acquaint myself directly with Adam Smith's thought. I expected to find a goonish theorist little better than yourself (in moral sentiment or otherwise), but I was consistently surprised with how progressive he was as a thinker, and how far he was from the "invisible hand saves da world zomg" idiot that people like you paint him to be. Fuck off forever with that bullshit. People deserve to know the truth about history.

[Edited on July 2, 2011 at 1:08 AM. Reason : .]

7/2/2011 1:00:10 AM

Triple posting because I find it remarkable and ridiculous that a socialist is defending Adam Smith's message and thought against a self-avowed "capitalist"; not necessarily defending the content so much as insisting that the "capitalist" get it remotely right.

[Edited on July 2, 2011 at 1:35 AM. Reason : .]

7/2/2011 1:29:36 AM

Quite a lot of words to say nothing. Just another rant about how anyone that disagrees with you must be lying or any number of other insults. Well, that is unfair, you did say exactly one thing that is falsifiable: that you believe Smith's complete works are not available for free on the internet. A belief which google shows to be completely false. Good try, though.

7/2/2011 2:01:04 AM

I haven't marked up the copies that are on the internet now have I? Do you want me to reread entire sections to show you what you should have read the first time? I told you above what the content was; now I have to pull the exact quotes from a copy I didn't already mark them in? Fuck you.

Fuck right off. You know just how ignorant you are. It's funny how you imagine this as a disagreement over interpretation when really you are simply unaware of what he wrote. One thing Smith and Hume had in common was remarkable clarity and if you didn't pick up on Smith's points then I know you did not read.

Now fuck off this is way too depressing and you're way too big a piece of shit to warrant any more of my time. I wasn't about to let you get away with your lies, though, because people here would come away with an incorrect view of Smith (your view; the view of a man who doesn't have the integrity to read what he rambles about).

[Edited on July 2, 2011 at 2:11 AM. Reason : .]

7/2/2011 2:09:46 AM

Seriously, I fly off the handle on TWW a lot because of the ignorance. But to see somebody lie and pretend to be an authority figure such as you? It really fills me with disgust. I am not interacting with you anymore, save to correct your intentional attempts at misdirection and misinformation (and only for the sake of others).

7/2/2011 2:12:54 AM