You don't have to be a communist to admit capitalism is in crisis

Discussion of current events
Post Reply
neverfail
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

You don't have to be a communist to admit capitalism is in crisis

Post by neverfail » Sun May 21, 2017 8:25 pm

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/you-dont- ... w9job.html

(quote) Overall, concludes The Economist, Marx was good at identifying the "disease" at the heart of modern capitalism, but he did not, in his advocacy of a mass revolution by the workers, identify an appropriate cure.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 727
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: You don't have to be a communist to admit capitalism is in crisis

Post by Sertorio » Mon May 22, 2017 7:40 am

neverfail wrote:
Sun May 21, 2017 8:25 pm
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/you-dont- ... w9job.html

(quote) Overall, concludes The Economist, Marx was good at identifying the "disease" at the heart of modern capitalism, but he did not, in his advocacy of a mass revolution by the workers, identify an appropriate cure.
Exactly my opinion on Marx for many years. But I guess I am smarter than The Economist... :lol:

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 1194
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: You don't have to be a communist to admit capitalism is in crisis

Post by Doc » Mon May 22, 2017 8:43 am

Crony Capitalism does not equal capitalism. They are not even the same type of thing.
The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: You don't have to be a communist to admit capitalism is in crisis

Post by SteveFoerster » Mon May 22, 2017 9:43 am

I was rather distracted by the author's curious insistence that the Economist is anything other than "safely" centre-left.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

neverfail
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: You don't have to be a communist to admit capitalism is in crisis

Post by neverfail » Mon May 22, 2017 8:08 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Mon May 22, 2017 9:43 am
I was rather distracted by the author's curious insistence that the Economist is anything other than "safely" centre-left.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Tell us another one sometime Steve!

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1164
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: You don't have to be a communist to admit capitalism is in crisis

Post by cassowary » Mon May 22, 2017 8:19 pm

There are so many things wrong with the article by Jessica Irvine as well as the Economist article that she quoted. I will pick the errors one by one:

Error no. 1:
"The essence of his argument is that the capitalist class consists not of wealth creators but of rent seekers – people who are skilled at expropriating other people's work and presenting it as their own."
I think the writer from the SMH was quoting the Economist here. The economist got it wrong here. Marx was not talking about wealth creators vs rent seekers. In Marx's view, all wealth created rightfully belongs to the working class. The surplus that the capitalists earn above what he paid his workers end up in the capitalist's pocket. But this is exploitation because it rightly belongs to the worker.

I have given you a link to a Socialist website explaining it in detail. That is what Mard was talking about and not what the Economist imagined - rent seekers vs wealth creators. In fact, I don't think Marx knew anything about wealth creation. Don't we have our entrepreneurs who create wealth? Famous ones are people like Steve Jobs who started out in his garage. In practice, the more the government intervenes in the market, the more rent seeking or crony capitalism there will be.

So the fault lies with the leftist parties who always wish to expand government control over the economy.

Error 2:
But The Economist must, however, draw the line at Marx's characterisation of capitalism's inevitable "immiseration" of the poor, pointing to the success of the welfare state and minimum wage in protecting workers.
For a magazine calling itself the "Economist", it sure does not know economics. The minimum wage causes unemployment and thus keeps people poor. It started out as a racist tool to keep minorities and women from getting jobs.
Minimum-wage laws can even affect the level of racial discrimination. In an earlier era, when racial discrimination was both legally and socially accepted, minimum-wage laws were often used openly to price minorities out of the job market.

.
.
.
Some supporters of the first federal minimum-wage law in the United States — the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 — used exactly the same rationale, citing the fact that Southern construction companies, using non-union black workers, were able to come north and underbid construction companies using unionized white labor.
Error 3:
It is increasingly clear that capitalism, as a system for organising economies by liberating individuals to make private transactions, is not a system that lends itself to increasing equality, as was once hoped.
Here Irvine, the SMH journalist, gets it wrong about capitalism. It was never claimed that the purpose of capitalism is to create equality. That is the Marxist wish. The claim is the capitalism is the best road to general prosperity and not equality. Her Marxist thinking is injected into what she believed about capitalism. What an irony.

It has been known all along that capitalism will result in inequality and there is nothing wrong with inequality. Churchill knew about it and sums up the difference between capitalism and socialism very elegantly:
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
What's wrong about inequality. It is a natural state found in nature. For example, a small handful of lions gains all the females.
Take a look at a pride of lions, and it becomes obvious that there are more females than males, usually at a ratio of about 2- or 3-to-1.
Error no. 4
Increasingly it's clear that capitalism and the rule of free markets is an ideal to which we should strive, not some innate state of being waiting to be unleashed from excessive government control.
Irvine has it backwards. The biggest enemy to the free market is big government which the left keeps advocating. Big government invites crony capitalism which she laments in her article.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1164
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: You don't have to be a communist to admit capitalism is in crisis

Post by cassowary » Mon May 22, 2017 8:45 pm

There are so many things wrong with the article by Jessica Irvine as well as the Economist article that she quoted. I will pick the errors one by one:

Error no. 1:
"The essence of his argument is that the capitalist class consists not of wealth creators but of rent seekers – people who are skilled at expropriating other people's work and presenting it as their own."
I think the writer from the SMH was quoting the Economist here. The economist got it wrong. Marx was not talking about wealth creators vs rent seekers. In Marx's view, all wealth created rightfully belongs to the working class. The surplus that the capitalists earn above what he paid his workers end up in the capitalist's pocket. But this is exploitation because it rightly belongs to the worker.

I have given you a link to a Socialist website explaining it in detail. That is what Marx was talking about and not what the Economist imagined - rent seekers vs wealth creators. In fact, I don't think Marx knew anything about wealth creation. Don't we have our entrepreneurs who create wealth? Famous ones are people like Steve Jobs who started out in his garage. Then there are unknown entrepreneurs who risked their capital starting small businesses. In practice, the more the government intervenes in the market, the more rent seeking or crony capitalism there will be.

So the fault lies with the leftist parties who always wish to expand government control over the economy.

Error 2:
But The Economist must, however, draw the line at Marx's characterisation of capitalism's inevitable "immiseration" of the poor, pointing to the success of the welfare state and minimum wage in protecting workers.
For a magazine calling itself the "Economist", it sure does not know economics. The minimum wage causes unemployment and thus keeps people poor. It started out as a racist tool to keep minorities and women from getting jobs.
Minimum-wage laws can even affect the level of racial discrimination. In an earlier era, when racial discrimination was both legally and socially accepted, minimum-wage laws were often used openly to price minorities out of the job market.

.
.
.
Some supporters of the first federal minimum-wage law in the United States — the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 — used exactly the same rationale, citing the fact that Southern construction companies, using non-union black workers, were able to come north and underbid construction companies using unionized white labor.
Error 3:
It is increasingly clear that capitalism, as a system for organising economies by liberating individuals to make private transactions, is not a system that lends itself to increasing equality, as was once hoped.
Here Irvine, the SMH journalist, gets it wrong about capitalism. It was never claimed that the purpose of capitalism is to create equality. That is the Marxist wish. The claim is the capitalism is the best road to general prosperity and not equality. Her Marxist thinking is injected into what she believed about capitalism. What an irony.

It has been known all along that capitalism will result in inequality and there is nothing wrong with inequality. Churchill knew about it and sums up the difference between capitalism and socialism very elegantly:
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
What's wrong about inequality. It is a natural state found in nature. For example, a small handful of lions gains all the females.
Take a look at a pride of lions, and it becomes obvious that there are more females than males, usually at a ratio of about 2- or 3-to-1.
Error no. 4
Increasingly it's clear that capitalism and the rule of free markets is an ideal to which we should strive, not some innate state of being waiting to be unleashed from excessive government control.
Irvine has it backwards. The biggest enemy to the free market is big government which the left keeps advocating. Big government invites crony capitalism which she laments in her article.
[/quote]

Error no. 5

She is shooting at the wrong target. The major crisis facing the world today is a crisis in Socialism and not capitalism. Look at Venezuela as exhibit no. 1. People are eating from trash cans. Then there is Greece. Then look at nearly all the western economies which has over-bloated welfare states and huge debts.

I await her article on the crisis of Socialism.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 875
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: You don't have to be a communist to admit capitalism is in crisis

Post by SteveFoerster » Mon May 22, 2017 8:58 pm

cassowary wrote:
Mon May 22, 2017 8:45 pm
For a magazine calling itself the "Economist", it sure does not know economics.
Indeed. Like I said, it's centre-left and very pro-establishment.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1164
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Socialism in crisis

Post by cassowary » Tue May 23, 2017 9:24 am

Image

Demonstrators in Venezuela

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 727
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: You don't have to be a communist to admit capitalism is in crisis

Post by Sertorio » Tue May 23, 2017 10:37 am

cassowary wrote:
Mon May 22, 2017 8:45 pm
The minimum wage causes unemployment and thus keeps people poor.
How very wrong... I have made some calculations for Portugal and have reached the conclusion that a 10% increase in the minimum wage will increase firms total costs by 1%. Such an increase in costs is totally irrelevant. There may be a marginal increase in unemployment which will be quickly absorbed as a result of the need to increase global supply resulting from an increase in global demand following the increase in minimum wages. An increase of minimum wages in the magnitude of 10 to 15% will in fact contribute to a growth in GDP and in employment.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Doc, Jim the Moron and 3 guests