iCP2: They're throwing in the towel.

[ekianjo]

In the long term, there are only two possible outcomes: another economic system (e.g. democratic socialism), or barbarism (e.g. more wars).

I'll need to come back point by point on your argument (don't have time now), but the fact that you seem to associate the lack of wars with socalism / democracy or a mix of two is astounding. Socialism has been a major force to drive wars, whether interally or externally. Soviet Russia invading numerous countries around them, supporting dictatorships all around the world, and killing their own population by truckloads in work camps. People always say "but that's not really socialism" but actually socialism always turn into fascism because you need to "plan the economy" in socialistic entities and therefore you need a to have few people on top, leading to anti-democratic principles. In all other countries where socialism was adopted (south east Asia, Cuba, etc...) people have suffered more than benefited from it, and neighboring nations who tended to be more close to capitalistic practices fared much, much better. And I'll probably win a Godwin point for this, but the third Reich, let's not forget, was directed by a socalist party. Yeah, na-zi stands for national socialism - Socialism with a nationalistic component. And Adolph never denied he was following socialism ideals and said that he wanted to crush capitalism - literally. And Socialists usually don't like to hear that because they think they are at the other extreme of fascism but factually speaking, most fascist countries around the world come from Socialism ideals. 

So, when I hear people saying that Socialism bring peace, it first makes me laugh because it shows how ignorant they are of how socialism actually works in practice, and it makes me sad that people forget what happened (and still happens) in socialist countries around the world. This is all some kind of romantic fantasy. 

And _wb_, I'm sure you are a good person at heart, like many people who believe in Socialism, but I hope you realize the limits and dangers of socialism one day. 

 

[ibisum]

Socialism: a political movement designed from the outset to hide its own faults ..

 

[ekianjo]

The entire system is build upon growth, if the cake doesn't keep getting bigger at some point the system will break! I am pretty sure that this will happen someday ...

Nope, not at all. It shows you haven't read much about capitalism theory. Capitalism does not say guarantees growth at all. Capitalism is based on the idea that through one's work, capital will be created (you save money or build stuff that has value) and that putting resources in common through shared ownership (through stocks) can lead to investments that can not be made by single individuals. Whether these investments will bring returns or not, that's up to the consumers to decide in the end, by validating or refusing to buy the products made through these investments. Capitalism factors crises and bubbles and they are even part of natural cycles and they are necessary for the system to work -> not all companies can grow, and not all investments can be worthy, and sometimes market crashes, but they ultimately recover and pass beyond the points they crashed at. Over the scale of the 20th century, even factoring the 1929 crash, the two world wars and the 1970s crashes, the return on portfolio stocks has far exceeded the losses. You can't just look at one year to another and say "oh, 2014 was worse than 2013, it means capitalism does not work anymore".

This is macroscopic phenomenon, you can't just look at it for short periods of time only.  

 

[sswam]

Just one question - was it really Craig:

http://www.b3ta.com/questions/schoolnaughtiness/post1347342

http://www.b3ta.com/users/profile.php?id=32177

That sure sounds like Craig to me, LOL. I miss him.

 

[elwing]

 The cake keeps getting bigger and there's more work for people than you could ever expect 2 centuries ago.

hum, no one told you? The cake is a lie!

 

[comradekingu]

sswam starts ww3 in forum thread, solves world production problems.

 

[ramboky]

Back to the much more interesting off-topic topic. This article about a NASA funded study describes a potential (and likely?) outcome of continuing to have blind faith in capitalism and the status quo.

Nasa-funded study: industrial civilisation headed for 'irreversible collapse'?

 

[Miner49er]

Oh, you've all stopped - I was really enjoying that, as somebody that is displeased about the state of the world.

 

[_wb_]

In the long term, there are only two possible outcomes: another economic system (e.g. democratic socialism), or barbarism (e.g. more wars).

I'll need to come back point by point on your argument (don't have time now), but the fact that you seem to associate the lack of wars with socalism / democracy or a mix of two is astounding. Socialism has been a major force to drive wars, whether interally or externally. Soviet Russia invading numerous countries around them, supporting dictatorships all around the world, and killing their own population by truckloads in work camps. People always say "but that's not really socialism" but actually socialism always turn into fascism because you need to "plan the economy" in socialistic entities and therefore you need a to have few people on top, leading to anti-democratic principles. In all other countries where socialism was adopted (south east Asia, Cuba, etc...) people have suffered more than benefited from it, and neighboring nations who tended to be more close to capitalistic practices fared much, much better. And I'll probably win a Godwin point for this, but the third Reich, let's not forget, was directed by a socalist party. Yeah, na-zi stands for national socialism - Socialism with a nationalistic component. And Adolph never denied he was following socialism ideals and said that he wanted to crush capitalism - literally. And Socialists usually don't like to hear that because they think they are at the other extreme of fascism but factually speaking, most fascist countries around the world come from Socialism ideals. 

So, when I hear people saying that Socialism bring peace, it first makes me laugh because it shows how ignorant they are of how socialism actually works in practice, and it makes me sad that people forget what happened (and still happens) in socialist countries around the world. This is all some kind of romantic fantasy. 

And _wb_, I'm sure you are a good person at heart, like many people who believe in Socialism, but I hope you realize the limits and dangers of socialism one day. 

Obviously "socialism" (and "communism") are words that have been used by a lot of people and regimes in lots of different ways. Back when "socialism" was a popular word, it was indeed often used by all kind of dictatorial regimes to try to get more popular support: both Stalin and Hitler are examples of this.

Fascism has nothing to do with socialism: it is authoritarian ultra-nationalism, which is quite literally the opposite of socialism, which is by definition ultra-democratic internationalism.

Stalinism also has nothing to do with socialism: the concept of so-called "socialism in one country" directly contradicts the internationalism that defines socialism; the massive oppression by the state apparatus directly contradicts the ultra-democratic central idea of socialism.

The fact that both Stalin and Hitler have used the word "socialism" to describe their views is about as relevant as the fact that the current regimes in China, Cuba or North-Korea call themselves "communist" and "democratic". Words are easy to manipulate. It's however not because someone claims that pigs can fly, and even calls them Flying Pigs, that it becomes true.

I'm a Trotskyist myself. I hope people will at some point learn to distinguish Stalinism from Socialism. Stalin has killed a lot of real socialists, probably more than Hitler. It is quite sad that to this day, simplistic and distorted interpretations of history are still used to equate socialism to stalinism.

 

[ekianjo]

I hope people will at some point learn to distinguish Stalinism from Socialism. Stalin has killed a lot of real socialists, probably more than Hitler. It is quite sad that to this day, simplistic and distorted interpretations of history are still used to equate socialism to stalinism.

Socalism, by essence, cannot be "ultra-democratic", because its principle is that you should remove individual's freedom to create profit through their work - and dissolving all that into the community / greater good kind of rhetoric. How on earth a "ultra democratic" system forces you to abandon your property and your right to make a future for yourself?

 

[moxie]

That is, of course, only a problem if you consider individual property to be a basic democratic right. 

 

[klapse]

The cake keeps getting bigger and there's more work for people than you could ever expect 2 centuries ago.

The entire system is build upon growth, if the cake doesn't keep getting bigger at some point the system will break! I am pretty sure that this will happen someday ...

What ekianjo meant by cake getting bigger is that capitalism (investment of capital) drives more efficient production processes, increasing the amount of products available per man-hour invested. Consider that once upon a time, a pair of shoes cost several days of labor by a shoemaker. Modern production processes, which require considerable capital investment, reduce the human labor required per shoe to a couple of hours.

The things that require economic growth to sustain are the incredible debts incurred by western *governments*. That is the cycle that eventually breaks down and a government goes bankrupt, or runs the printing presses to pay for the bloat, creating inflation.

HIstorically with the automation of processes, people found other things to work-on and produce. Not too long ago over 90% of human labor was spent on farming. Automation reduced that to a few percent in most western countries. Other jobs sprang up, in many useful and not so useful areas.

Now what some futurists (and Exophase) are worried about is that technology (AI) will begin to encroach on skilled work and even service work, which appeared to be a uniquely human domain.

In my opinion the best solution to increased productivity is lowering of hours worked per week. Problem is that competitive international pressure makes this unachievable, as long as people in other countries are willing to put in long workdays. Right now the asians are kicking the western butt in education and competitiveness. A lot of wealth is being generated there and living standards are rising strongly.

It will be interesting to see how it all develops.

 

[klapse]

That is, of course, only a problem if you consider individual property to be a basic democratic right. 

It is not a "democratic" right. It is a simply a right, a natural extension of self-ownership. Hans-Hermann Hoppe is probably the most throrough theoretician in this.

 

[rohezal]

Socalism, by essence, cannot be "ultra-democratic", because its principle is that you should remove individual's freedom to create profit through their work

This is wrong. In the capitalistic system the produced good are taken by the company owner(s) and you get a share (wage). In communism and anarcho syndicalism the produced goods are taken by the community and distributed. How it is distributed is a big question, I am a fan of 50% for all, 25% as extra wage for working people, 10% for science, 10% building projects, 5% for bad times. Done automaticly via computers, economy completly controlled by machines. And you can order what you want, like at amazon. Just that this amazon is the automated factory, the self driving transporter and reacts at people needs (calculated and orders). Where to build, what to produce and what to research should be decided by everyone (every one gets a share of the science and building money, but can just put it into a project he likes, a project needs 100 bidders before it can get money). A part of the science and building money (lets say 50%) should be given to people who are professionals like university professors, city planers etc.

How on earth a "ultra democratic" system forces you to abandon your property and your right to make a future for yourself?

You are not losing your property. Only production goods and flats become public property. Which can be democratic controlled. You can still own a house, a car, a garden etc. . But you can choose to work, choose what your factory produces, where the research and development money is used for (with some fixed rates for universities etc).

 

[ekianjo]

In the capitalistic system the produced good are taken by the company owner(s) and you get a share (wage).

You are obviously discarding the fact that you can work for yourself and be your own boss, like millions of people do in each country - so, no, my statement is entirely correct. Socialism reduces your freedom.  

Where to build, what to produce and what to research should be decided by everyone

It's already the case. You are voting with your dollars. You don't need socialism when you have free market and the ability to invest in projects you believe in. Look at SpaceX, they have achieved more in a couple of years than NASA has done in the past 20 years with your tax dollars. Look at Kickstarter, which is exactly what free market does to get people together to invest in ideas they believe in. I know we are in the ICP2 thread so it may seem like a bad example, but more often than not, KS projects end up working and being made.

You are not losing your property.

Oh, but you are. Farmers in all socialist countries were dispossessed of their lands and means of production. They clearly LOST their properties, there's no way you can talk your way out of that statement.  

 

[ekianjo]

choose what your factory produces,

It has never worked like that in any socialist country so far. Factory productions were decided by the State, and they were completely in disconnection with the market, causing massive shortages of essential parts or machines, leading to supply chain issues, chaos and loss of productivity. There's so many examples out there, I wonder why people still believe things can work like that. 

 

[sswam]

In my opinion, people should have liberty to own stuff and work on whatever they choose.

However, it should not be allowed for greedy people and companies to accumulate land. Land is special.

 

[_wb_]

Consumer power -- "voting with your dollars" -- is not nearly as effective as you make it sound. Even if it gets coordinated, its effect is still quite minimal: boycotts against Israel or against Monsanto etc. do not have any measurable effect. Even if they would be successful, it would be only the working class that is working in the targeted company or country that suffers the consequences.

The only historical example of a successful boycott I know, is the one against South-Africa's apartheid regime. But that boycott was only successful because it was not just a consumer boycott, but also a producer boycott: dock workers all over the world and especially in South-Africa itself participated, which together with the struggle all over the country, helped to bring apartheid to its knees.

As to individual property: there are many flavors of socialism, but the "vanilla" one (well, there are obviously also discussions about which one is the "vanilla" one; this is my opinion), that is, the political ideology developed by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, does not want to abolish individual property at all. You can still own a house, own a car, own a Pandora, and even own a small bakery or candy shop and "work for yourself". All of that is perfectly fine (well, not the car maybe, for ecological reasons; but we wouldn't take it away, we would extend and improve the public transport system to the point that many people will not need for a car anymore). However, the key sectors of the economy, the ones that require real capital, those should be nationalized and be put under democratic workers' control. Things like energy production, steel production, the financial sector, the pharmaceutical sector, and so on: those are too important to be left to a handful of individuals whose interests do not necessarily coincide with those of the general public -- and as reality demonstrates, they do not, not at all. And yes, this increases democracy, even though the individual property of about 0.001% of the population gets expropriated.

 

[Morn]

You are obviously discarding the fact that you can work for yourself and be your own boss, like millions of people do in each country.

Because most people actually can't Range of professions where you can freelance is rather limited. One man or a family-like business can't produce a TV, phone or a car, can't build a skyscraper or a road. You can make clothes or shoes but that would be totally inefficient. And this range of professions is already shrinking as global networks overtake traditionally small-business sectors like retail or gastronomy.

choose what your factory produces,

 It has never worked like that in any socialist country so far. Factory productions were decided by the State, and they were completely in disconnection with the market

It didn't work in socialist countries because they tried to plan more than they could handle, but that doesn't mean that it didn't work at all. There was once a company exporting rice and seafood. The government (military regime) came and said: "Now, forget about rice and start producing electronics. We'll give you support, necessary financing (all banks were state-owned), and domestic monopoly supported with high import fees until you could compete on an international market." The company agreed as it didn't have much of a choice, regime could nationalize any company. And you know what? That actually worked, this rise exporting company was called Samsung.

 

[FBnil]

but can just put it into a project he likes, a project needs 100 bidders before it can get money

I'm pretty sure people will vote massively for a statue of Justin Biber, but not for some dull investigation about amoebas (which could lead to a new medicine). The problem is that some things seem not that important and people only react to short term problems. For example, I do not care about the garbage, not a problem this year it was well funded and they put new bins, so next year, I do not vote to put money there, and if many people do that, then the next year, I have garbagebags and flies all around the neighborhood. So there must be a stabilizing factor, that calculates inflation, reserves money for new trucks/infra etc.

sorry Rohezal to be like the third to bash your comment. Please keep on posting because I like your thoughts on things.

I love topic derailments.