If Mort Divine ruled the world

[CiG]

The left for the most part does not really care about the public owning the farms, factories, fisheries, etc. what they really want is capitalism with high taxation.

Of course, because "the left" isn't synonymous with socialism or communism. Most left-wingers are actually just center-left Democratic Party types, essentially social liberals who want capitalism (even if they sneer at its name) and social programs via taxation.

 

[arg]

Well, this isn't entirely inaccurate. It's just that the poor performance is far and away better than comparative "good" performance.



An alternative explanation is that it shifts the improvement of the economic situation of countries as countries improve their situation. Capitalism can't improve situations that aren't already shit. Capitalism doesn't necessitate poverty; improvement of impoverishment necessitates capitalism.



Yes, most "socialists" are really capitalists but want free shit for nothing. Omg super accurate. Lazy and/or worthless people wanting the readily available capitalist provided surplus which isn't available if the preferred economic organization were enacted. Oh nos, much oppression, many starvation.

But what if they’re not lazy, but instead unwillingly rendered “worthless” by capitalism replacing them with the chinese, the indians and the robots? What do we do with those people?

Extreme-right aug would say “let them die off” but what if it was a cool dude or gal?

 

[arg]

Actually I’ll just answer my own question
- they need to be repurposed!
- no brainer 1st: legalize prostitution across the USA so they can whore themselves out
- eliminate the minimum wage so they can compete with the chinese/indians/robots
- more “gig economy” type jobs like uber, etc
- bring back coliseum-style arena fighting for money that anyone, even grandmothers and one-legged folks can enter
- any more suggestions that would work?

See I’m not a complete monster, what do you guys think?

 

[CiG]

- bring back coliseum-style arena fighting for money that anyone, even grandmothers and one-legged folks can enter

You have my symbolic vote for 2020 dude.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

they already have that, it's called mma...

 

[arg]

Holy shit is that real? Lmao literally a grandmother and a no-limbed guy! That shit needs to be expanded on a global scale! The solution to poverty right there folks. Let the poor and downtrodden duke it out in mortal kombat for prize money, entertainment and gambling!

 

[Dak]

The two are one and the same.

The two are one and the same.

So the poor performance of communism or socialism, or modes of economic activity which predate all, are the fault of capitalism?

 

[Dak]

Scott Adams has recently posted about trying to meet certain BLM chapters halfway. He is repping an NY chapter. They have, according to him, provided the following request list:

Ideas from Black Lives Matter – New York

1. Prosecute and jail police that falsify reports.
2. Police must call an ambulance if defendant complains of illness.
3. Voting rights for people in prison
4. Independent prosecutors for police killings of unarmed civilians.
5. Comprehensive national database of police shootings.
6. New York holiday for Day of Remembrance for victims of police brutality.

There's some very sensible requests in this list. But then we have items like 6 which are ridiculous, and items 2 and 3 which are problematic at the very least. These sorts of requests water down the likelihood of very obvious positive changes like independent prosecution for police brutality cases.

 

[Dak]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/grandparents-raiding-grandchildren/548117/

The Atlantic: Late to the party but at least they made it.

Essentially, then, our major entitlement programs don’t just pay back “contributors” what they themselves put up for their own pensions and old-age care: They represent the grandparents if not “stealing” from the grandchildren, as Vonnegut put it, then at least living off them while pretending not to. And with “grandparents” living longer and Boomers retiring at the rate of one per hour, spending on entitlements is growing and consuming an ever-larger share of both government expenditures and the nation’s economy as a whole.
..................
Which begs the question, why would we “reform” entitlements in a way that delays the changes until the problem they are supposedly intended to address will be largely history, imposing draconian cuts on the future? This amounts, purely and simply, to forcing our grandchildren both to pay for our profligacy today and our parsimoniousness tomorrow—or, if you prefer, our liberality toward ourselves and conservatism toward everyone else.

Good article even if it ends on a passive aggressive note. The Atlantic is killing the Times and WaPo lately. Both have more or less contracted TDS since the election.

 

[Einherjar86]

So the poor performance of communism or socialism, or modes of economic activity which predate all, are the fault of capitalism?

Why the jump to "modes of economic activity which predate all"? Economics is not an ahistorical science; it's a historically and culturally conditioned system of relations. Global capitalism is tied to the rise of the modern state. So no, I'm not talking about all "modes of economic activity which predate all." I'm talking about modern systems of economic organization, of which capitalism and socialism are a part.

it was through the State-form and not the town-form that capitalism triumphed; this occurred when the Western states became models of realization for an axiomatic of decoded flows, and in that way resubjugated the towns [...] But the relation is a reciprocal one: if it is the modern State that gives capitalism its models of realization, what is thus realized is an independent, worldwide axiomatic that is like a single City, a megalopolis, or "megamachine" of which the States are parts, or neighborhoods.

Capitalism constitutes the global economic axiom. Socialism has always, since its inception, been made to compete within the framework of global capital. I'm not championing it or trying to apologize for it; but logically speaking, it's absurd to expect success of socialism when its only context of operation is that of global capital.

To the extent that capitalism constitutes an axiomatic (production for the market), all States and all social formations tend to become isomorphic in their capacity as models of realization: there is but one centered world market, the capitalist one, in which even the so-called socialist countries participate. [...] When international organization becomes the capitalist axiomatic, it continues to imply a heterogeneity of social formations, it gives rise to and organizes its "Third World."

This isn't a metaphysical argument, it's a historical one. The capitalist axiomatic doesn't mean that every economic system in all of history is capitalism's fault; it means that since the modern State established capitalism as the global economic model, all alternative forms of economic organization must participate in the wake of that model. Modern socialism is only socialism insofar as it's defined against the capitalist axiomatic. Economies don't end at the borders of their nations.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Yes, but only because there are third-world slums of skin-and-bone starvation. Capital accumulates, it forms in pockets, and it relies on the sheer destitution of the third-world.

Where? Every suffering third-world nation I can think of (most of them in Africa) is a nation that rejected capitalism. Every former third-world nation that embraced global capitalism has seen their wealth skyrocket (every "Asian miracle", Nigeria, the Arab world, etc). There is literally not a better system in existence for helping the international poor than global capitalism. Capitalism only hurts those entrenched in anti-market protectionist schemes, e.g. anyone that voted for Trump because of opposition to NAFTA.

 

[Einherjar86]

Where? Every suffering third-world nation I can think of (most of them in Africa) is a nation that rejected capitalism.

"Rejection"--you're still working according to the parameters of "national borders = economic borders." Countries can reject capitalism all they want, but it doesn't mean they don't operate within a global capitalist axiomatic.

Every former third-world nation that embraced global capitalism has seen their wealth skyrocket (every "Asian miracle", Nigeria, the Arab world, etc). There is literally not a better system in existence for helping the international poor than global capitalism. Capitalism only hurts those entrenched in anti-market protectionist schemes, e.g. anyone that voted for Trump because of opposition to NAFTA.

I'm not saying there is a better system--just that the third world is a logical outcome of modern capitalism. It might be that global socialism would be a more depressing picture; but it's disingenuous to suggest that capitalism offers the possibility of empowering everyone. That's a bald-faced lie.

 

[Dak]

Why the jump to "modes of economic activity which predate all"? Economics is not an ahistorical science; it's a historically and culturally conditioned system of relations. Global capitalism is tied to the rise of the modern state. So no, I'm not talking about all "modes of economic activity which predate all." I'm talking about modern systems of economic organization, of which capitalism and socialism are a part.

Capitalism constitutes the global economic axiom. Socialism has always, since its inception, been made to compete within the framework of global capital. I'm not championing it or trying to apologize for it; but logically speaking, it's absurd to expect success of socialism when its only context of operation is that of global capital.

Ok, but the mode of living pre-capitalism was material poverty for like 99.5% percent of persons, and even well to do persons didn't enjoy the material comforts a "welfare queen" has access to. Blaming poverty on capitalism where capitalism has not penetrated to any significant degree either lacks knowledge or shows a baldfaced agenda.

Socialism is simply an ideology of transfer of existing wealth, so of course it can't exist on its own past the depletion of capital, as it lacks any system of its own for productivity.

This isn't a metaphysical argument, it's a historical one. The capitalist axiomatic doesn't mean that every economic system in all of history is capitalism's fault; it means that since the modern State established capitalism as the global economic model, all alternative forms of economic organization must participate in the wake of that model. Modern socialism is only socialism insofar as it's defined against the capitalist axiomatic. Economies don't end at the borders of their nations.

This quote has a tenuous connection to any historical timelines or economic theory, and doesn't follow from the quote from D&G. While the Third World is understood from a post-industrial revolution framework, the industrial revolution didn't cause the conditions in the third world. Those conditions already existed, and only are recognized as problematic due to the improvement in places which embraced capitalism. Socialism is post-capitalism, but can't differentiate itself not because of the existence of capitalism, but because it is purely a robbing peter to pay paul scheme - it doesn't offer a functional alternative mode of production.

"Rejection"--you're still working according to the parameters of "national borders = economic borders." Countries can reject capitalism all they want, but it doesn't mean they don't operate within a global capitalist axiomatic.

I'm not saying there is a better system--just that the third world is a logical outcome of modern capitalism. It might be that global socialism would be a more depressing picture; but it's disingenuous to suggest that capitalism offers the possibility of empowering everyone. That's a bald-faced lie.

The third world is neither a logical or empirical outcome of capitalism unless one wants to argue purely on a semantic basis. I agree that capitalism cannot empower everyone - someone with Downs or some other severe handicap cannot contribute, and as technology progresses, the list of who cannot contribute will continue to grow. However, the surplus and even the "trash" generated by these advancements renders concerns moot, at least relative to alternative modes of economic theory.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I'm not saying there is a better system--just that the third world is a logical outcome of modern capitalism. It might be that global socialism would be a more depressing picture; but it's disingenuous to suggest that capitalism offers the possibility of empowering everyone. That's a bald-faced lie.

It's not the outcome anywhere in the world. Name a country that is deeply impoverished primarily as a result of the growth of wealth in other countries. Maybe you're thinking of scenarios like the Banana Wars; there is an overlap where imperialists and businesses get along just fine, I fully acknowledge, but that's usually because of protectionist sentiments. Further, even if that counts as capitalism, it isn't what holds nations down long-term. It creates temporary war and economic depression, then usually followed by a gradual improvement of the citizens' standard of living. Cuba was wealthier under an admittedly shitty capitalist leader than under Castro. Venezuela was far wealthier in the 1950s when they sold their oil freely rather than every time the government tried to nationalize things and kick the capitalists out. Almost every nation that could currently be called third world is either

1) An African hellhole with no respect of property rights (a fundamental component of capitalism)
2) A landlocked ex-USSR -stan with no natural resources (limited ability to trade) and more interest in Russian than English (the language of capitalism)
3) North Korea

Frankly, denying the universal benefits of global trade should be treated like denying the Holocaust. The former has certainly killed more than the latter.

 

[arg]

It's not the outcome anywhere in the world. Name a country that is deeply impoverished primarily as a result of the growth of wealth in other countries. Maybe you're thinking of scenarios like the Banana Wars; there is an overlap where imperialists and businesses get along just fine, I fully acknowledge, but that's usually because of protectionist sentiments. Further, even if that counts as capitalism, it isn't what holds nations down long-term. It creates temporary war and economic depression, then usually followed by a gradual improvement of the citizens' standard of living. Cuba was wealthier under an admittedly shitty capitalist leader than under Castro. Venezuela was far wealthier in the 1950s when they sold their oil freely rather than every time the government tried to nationalize things and kick the capitalists out. Almost every nation that could currently be called third world is either

1) An African hellhole with no respect of property rights (a fundamental component of capitalism)
2) A landlocked ex-USSR -stan with no natural resources (limited ability to trade) and more interest in Russian than English (the language of capitalism)
3) North Korea

Frankly, denying the universal benefits of global trade should be treated like denying the Holocaust. The former has certainly killed more than the latter.

On your side but playing devil’s advocate... the left and Ein don’t want to abolish capitalism but rather tax the shit out of those who succeed at it to help those left behind by it... and that works great in Sweden, Norway and Denmark why shouldn’t we do it in the USA the richest country in the world?!?! /berniebro

 

[Dak]

orks great in Sweden, Norway and Denmark why shouldn’t we do it in the USA the richest country in the world?!?! /berniebro

Small country, has been homogeneous population, rich in natural resources in at leas the case of Norway. However, even in these countries, things are shifting back to privatization.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

tbh Nordic socialism does work, but only because it's buttressed by capitalism and a populace that is willing to support it. Norway is pretty much a cold secular Saudi Arabia, with all the oil money they have. Pretty easy to afford cushy welfare states like that. In fairness, even state-controlled markets can successfully incorporate socialism, such as Libya, as long as they have great resources to sell. It's not so much that capitalism is the only way to trade and build the wealth of nations, as much as it is the most reliable/least centralized. But trade itself, whether between neighbors or nations, is as important and fundamental a human right as free speech/expression, if not even more so. Notable too that when one nation really wants to destroy another, they drop embargoes, not bombs. Economic sanctions on Iraq after the Gulf War killed more people than weapons did during it. Capitalism is about the closest thing there is in this world to an absolute good.

 

[Dak]

Norway is pretty much a cold secular Saudi Arabia, with all the oil money they have.

Well not just oil, but yes.

Economic sanctions on Iraq after the Gulf War killed more people than weapons did during it.

I've seen research that says that was a lie.

http://gh.bmj.com/content/2/2/e000311

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Yeah they have salmon too.

First time hearing of that, looks pretty compelling tbh.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's not the outcome anywhere in the world. Name a country that is deeply impoverished primarily as a result of the growth of wealth in other countries. Maybe you're thinking of scenarios like the Banana Wars; there is an overlap where imperialists and businesses get along just fine, I fully acknowledge, but that's usually because of protectionist sentiments. Further, even if that counts as capitalism, it isn't what holds nations down long-term. It creates temporary war and economic depression, then usually followed by a gradual improvement of the citizens' standard of living. Cuba was wealthier under an admittedly shitty capitalist leader than under Castro. Venezuela was far wealthier in the 1950s when they sold their oil freely rather than every time the government tried to nationalize things and kick the capitalists out. Almost every nation that could currently be called third world is either

1) An African hellhole with no respect of property rights (a fundamental component of capitalism)
2) A landlocked ex-USSR -stan with no natural resources (limited ability to trade) and more interest in Russian than English (the language of capitalism)
3) North Korea

Frankly, denying the universal benefits of global trade should be treated like denying the Holocaust. The former has certainly killed more than the latter.

I don't deny the benefits of global trade. I'd agree that capitalism was a positive development in the history of a) economic productivity and b) individual prosperity, and that globalism is directly responsible for the level of technological development we enjoy today. One critical aspect of capitalist development, however, is that it's historically tied to the dynamics of imperialist expansion, which is part of what Deleuze and Guattari describe as the modern State. Given this historical connection, it's impossible to extricate poverty from success.

You respond to many of my points already, which is that protectionism and imperialism were crucial components of capitalism (and still are today, to perhaps a lesser degree). You suggest that this leads to "temporary war and economic depression," which is accurate; but it's not followed by significant improvement of the standard of living for all citizens (additionally, all citizens didn't enjoy higher standards of living before communist revolutions; only some did). More often than not, the extraction of imperialist powers either a) opens the door for corrupt local officials to swoop in and take over, or b) establishes a dictatorial regime that leads to the kinds of coups we see in Cuba and Afghanistan. The resultant effects aren't unrelated to the capitalist efforts of imperialist nations that colonized and occupied these territories. Venezuela's current situation isn't a result of their government's meddling or "kicking the capitalists out"; it's an effect of the 1973 oil embargo and its lingering impact. Likewise, as Orwell suggests in the piece quoted by Dak, India's poverty was an effect of Britain's domestic standard-of-living (that is, the British could enjoy the products and wealth that they did only because India couldn't fully enjoy the fruits of their labor, most of which went to the Brits). This is all part of global markets and trade as much as it is part of government meddling or other purportedly "anti-market" activities.

I won't deny that countries like Cuba and Venezuela are poorly managed and that their internal economic policies are insufficient. I won't deny that capitalism has done more for global development in the past two centuries than socialism. I will deny that capitalism can solve the third world's problems.

The current economic standing of countries like Afghanistan, Guinea, Haiti, and of colonies like Puerto Rico, are results of capitalist history. There's no way around this point. Does that mean capitalism is primarily responsible for their current situations? I won't argue that, no, because I don't think I have enough information to figure out what the primary factors are. But I can say with certainty that these situations aren't unrelated to capitalist intervention over the past century or more.

Ok, but the mode of living pre-capitalism was material poverty for like 99.5% percent of persons, and even well to do persons didn't enjoy the material comforts a "welfare queen" has access to. Blaming poverty on capitalism where capitalism has not penetrated to any significant degree either lacks knowledge or shows a baldfaced agenda.

But capitalism has "penetrated" the places I'm talking about. Countries don't need to have established capitalist economies in order to experience its global effects.

Socialism is simply an ideology of transfer of existing wealth, so of course it can't exist on its own past the depletion of capital, as it lacks any system of its own for productivity.

Exactly--there you go.

This quote has a tenuous connection to any historical timelines or economic theory, and doesn't follow from the quote from D&G. While the Third World is understood from a post-industrial revolution framework, the industrial revolution didn't cause the conditions in the third world. Those conditions already existed, and only are recognized as problematic due to the improvement in places which embraced capitalism. Socialism is post-capitalism, but can't differentiate itself not because of the existence of capitalism, but because it is purely a robbing peter to pay paul scheme - it doesn't offer a functional alternative mode of production.

I'm not saying that capitalism or the industrial revolution caused conditions of poverty, and that's not what D&G say either. Saying that A relies on B is not the same as saying that A causes or creates B.

The allure of capitalism is that it has the capacity to extract production and value from impoverished regions by exploiting the poverty that already exists. This isn't in itself a bad thing; but once goods are produced they're often distributed elsewhere, and most of the value accumulates in other regions. So the standard of living for those in the third world might increase slightly; but this increase is disproportionate to the massive amounts of wealth distributed elsewhere as a result of third world labor and resources. This is why first-world countries often enjoy such high standards of living (for some people, at least).

The third world is neither a logical or empirical outcome of capitalism unless one wants to argue purely on a semantic basis. I agree that capitalism cannot empower everyone - someone with Downs or some other severe handicap cannot contribute, and as technology progresses, the list of who cannot contribute will continue to grow. However, the surplus and even the "trash" generated by these advancements renders concerns moot, at least relative to alternative modes of economic theory.

If you don't agree then you don't agree.