Economics Discussion Thread

[Janszoonia]

Very funny. Less so if you must cross the MDL in a hail of gunfire.

In a libertarian society, we will get our McHeartAttacks from eating Big Macs made with the remains of dead commies.

[Taihei Tengoku]

In a libertarian society I will freely disassociate with meme-spewing morons like you.

[Sovaal]

A communist country needs to be ran like a prison to survive. If you allow free movement people get out as soon as they can.

But I was only talking about capitalists, not people.

Might as well say anyone you don't agree with isn't a person at this point then.

[Constantinopolis]

Very funny. Less so if you must cross the MDL in a hail of gunfire.

It would definitely be a comedy if the reason you're doing that is to be reunited with your beloved offshore bank account.

[Janszoonia]

But I was only talking about capitalists, not people.

Might as well say anyone you don't agree with isn't a person at this point then.

It used to be anyone I disagree with is literally Hitler, now it's anyone I disagree with is not a person. At least Hitler was a person!

[Taihei Tengoku]

Very funny. Less so if you must cross the MDL in a hail of gunfire.

It would definitely be a comedy if the reason you're doing that is to be reunited with your beloved offshore bank account.

Given that everything onshore has been extorted, can you blame them?

[Constantinopolis]

But I was only talking about capitalists, not people.

Might as well say anyone you don't agree with isn't a person at this point then.

You do realize it was a joke response, right?

I mean, I considered pointing out that Taihei had just jumped from "capitalists being forced to give up their offshore bank accounts" to "no one is allowed to move, ever" as if they were somehow the same thing, but I figured it was pointless to mention the obvious, and much better to go with the joke that he lined up so perfectly.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Capital controls lead to people controls. The prospect of confiscation is what drives offshoring in the first place. If they can't offshore their money they'll offshore themselves.

[Sovaal]

Might as well say anyone you don't agree with isn't a person at this point then.

You do realize it was a joke response, right?

I mean, I considered pointing out that Taihei had just jumped from "capitalists being forced to give up their offshore bank accounts" to "no one is allowed to move, ever" as if they were somehow the same thing, but I figured it was pointless to mention the obvious, and much better to go with the joke that he lined up so perfectly.

The thing about the internet is that sarcasm and other things dependent on body language don't translate well on to a medium that is at its core anonymous in nature. But very well, I concede.

[Constantinopolis]

Capital controls lead to people controls. The prospect of confiscation is what drives offshoring in the first place. If they can't offshore their money they'll offshore themselves.

To clarify: Capitalists are people, but they are also criminals who live off the blood, sweat and tears of the working class. We owe them nothing. They owe us all the wealth they have stolen from us. They are welcome to leave and go wherever the hell they want, but their wealth - our wealth, the workers' wealth - stays behind. That is the deal. That is what I actually support. Not a ban on emigration, but conditions on emigration, yes. You can leave, but you can't take any assets with you.

And hey - if communism is as bad as you say, they will happily take that deal and leave, right? So, no problem. No people controls, just capital controls.

It would definitely be a comedy if the reason you're doing that is to be reunited with your beloved offshore bank account.

Given that everything onshore has been extorted, can you blame them?

Every single cent they have is exploited from the labour of the working class, so yes, I can blame them. Capitalists are parasites who live off the work of others, and then have the nerve to whine and complain when the state takes back some of their ill-gotten gains.

[Constantinopolis]

You do realize it was a joke response, right?

I mean, I considered pointing out that Taihei had just jumped from "capitalists being forced to give up their offshore bank accounts" to "no one is allowed to move, ever" as if they were somehow the same thing, but I figured it was pointless to mention the obvious, and much better to go with the joke that he lined up so perfectly.

The thing about the internet is that sarcasm and other things dependent on body language don't translate well on to a medium that is at its core anonymous in nature. But very well, I concede.

Ah, fair enough. I'm sorry about the confusion. I thought it would be obvious.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Capital controls lead to people controls. The prospect of confiscation is what drives offshoring in the first place. If they can't offshore their money they'll offshore themselves.

To clarify: Capitalists are people, but they are also criminals who live off the blood, sweat and tears of the working class. We owe them nothing. They owe us all the wealth they have stolen from us. They are welcome to leave and go wherever the hell they want, but their wealth - our wealth, the workers' wealth - stays behind. That is the deal. That is what I actually support. Not a ban on emigration, but conditions on emigration, yes. You can leave, but you can't take any assets with you.

And hey - if communism is as bad as you say, they will happily take that deal and leave, right? So, no problem. No people controls, just capital controls.

Given that everything onshore has been extorted, can you blame them?

Every single cent they have is exploited from the labour of the working class, so yes, I can blame them. Capitalists are parasites who live off the work of others, and then have the nerve to whine and complain when the state takes back some of their ill-gotten gains.

lmao

[Constantinopolis]

And to further clarify, for others reading this: When I say "capitalists", I am talking about the bourgeoisie. The owners of the means of production - the owners of companies, banks, corporations, and most of the rich in general (although not all rich people, strictly speaking).

I am not talking about people with pro-capitalist opinions. So this isn't about "those who disagree with me". It is not about people who hold any particular opinion. It is about a social class.

[Taihei Tengoku]

other people owe me stuff, the amount of which to be determined by myself

v. convenient

[Taihei Tengoku]

depreciate your currency by not calling it a depreciation

[Janszoonia]

I know that Taihei doesn't like it when I spam memes, this is my last one, I promise.

Communism in a nutshell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRqxc8ewnC4

[Constantinopolis]

other people owe me stuff, the amount of which to be determined by myself

v. convenient

No, the amount is very clear.

The only legitimate source of income is one's own labour. All income derived from property ownership - i.e. profit, interest, and rent - is illegitimate, and represents theft from those who work. All wealth accumulated from profit, interest and rent is wealth that rightfully belongs to the working class.

And the means of production belong to the working class, because the working class built them (and/or they came from nature, which is rightfully the common property of all). The factories, the land, the power plants, the office buildings, the shops and malls - these belong to the workers.

To be a communist, in a nutshell, is to stand vehemently on the side of the workers and the poor, and to be an unrelenting enemy of the bosses, the bankers and the landlords.

[Hydesland]

The only legitimate source of income is one's own labour.

You're devoutly religious right?

[Taihei Tengoku]

other people owe me stuff, the amount of which to be determined by myself

v. convenient

No, the amount is very clear.

all of it :::::::::-----------DDDDDDDDDDD

[Orostan]

No, the amount is very clear.

all of it :::::::::-----------DDDDDDDDDDD

You can objectivly measure surplus value.

[Lalaki]

I notice that Marxian economics got a plurality of votes in the poll.

I have an honest question. Why has a Marxist society never successfully come to fruition? We have seen several cases where the radical left takes a government over, but then fails to accomplish its goals. They collapse into authoritarianism, or individual leaders take advantage of the system to secure their own power, or the economy plunges and people revolt, or they transition back to capitalism, etc. There are always convenient explanations that are given by Marxists. If only Stalin had never shown up, then the USSR would've been successful! Venezuela's movement was doomed by American economic imperialism. The Chinese Communist Party is a piecemeal organization that betrayed its roots. North Korea's leaders never adopted (and perhaps never believed in) true communism. Cuba had to become a dictatorship to weed out capitalist influences. Different arguments, all pointing out how successful a revolution could've been if only things had gone right.

These perspectives all contain flaws though. The fact that nearly all communist revolutions have produced authoritarian states is a testament to how susceptible their theories are to do the age-old truism: power corrupts. And even in regards to the situations where communist states were harmed by western embargoes, isn't the point of their revolutions to reject capitalism and show that another way forward is possible? Why is Venezuela being held back by America if Chavez and Maduro wanted to have independence from our economic circle? Are they looking for development assistance from capitalist countries? At some point, it stops being the "west's fault."

Whenever I point out to communists that genuine progress in economic/social equality can be made through socially democratic reforms, they are quick to emphasize that problems still persist and that no amount of non-revolutionary action can get the job done. Efforts in a market society to reduce poverty, guarantee health care, and boost economic equality, no matter how successful, are not enough in the absence of rebellion. If we are to apply this standard of absolutism to social democracies, however, I will apply the same to the twentieth century's communist experiments. When people are still suffering and have lost their political liberties, whatever you're proposing isn't enough.

[Janszoonia]

I notice that Marxian economics got a plurality of votes in the poll.

I have an honest question. Why has a Marxist society never successfully come to fruition? We have seen several cases where the radical left takes a government over, but then fails to accomplish its goals. They collapse into authoritarianism, or individual leaders take advantage of the system to secure their own power, or the economy plunges and people revolt, or they transition back to capitalism, etc. There are always convenient explanations that are given by Marxists. If only Stalin had never shown up, then the USSR would've been successful! Venezuela's movement was doomed by American economic imperialism. The Chinese Communist Party is a piecemeal organization that betrayed its roots. North Korea's leaders never adopted (and perhaps never believed in) true communism. Cuba had to become a dictatorship to weed out capitalist influences. Different arguments, all pointing out how successful a revolution could've been if only things had gone right.

These perspectives all contain flaws though. The fact that nearly all communist revolutions have produced authoritarian states is a testament to how susceptible their theories are to do the age-old truism: power corrupts. And even in regards to the situations where communist states were harmed by western embargoes, isn't the point of their revolutions to reject capitalism and show that another way forward is possible? Why is Venezuela being held back by America if Chavez and Maduro wanted to have independence from our economic circle? Are they looking for development assistance from capitalist countries? At some point, it stops being the "west's fault."

Whenever I point out to communists that genuine progress in economic/social equality can be made through socially democratic reforms, they are quick to emphasize that problems still persist and that no amount of non-revolutionary action can get the job done. Efforts in a market society to reduce poverty, guarantee health care, and boost economic equality, no matter how successful, are not enough in the absence of rebellion. If we are to apply this standard of absolutism to social democracies, however, I will apply the same to the twentieth century's communist experiments. When people are still suffering and have lost their political liberties, whatever you're proposing isn't enough.

Marxism may be possible with anarchism, but that leaves a question: How are you going to enforce Marxism without betraying anarchism, or vice versa? While traditional Marxist thought has proposed a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" to weed out capitalism, it always emphasizes dictatorship over proletariat. Thus leading to the failures of Marxism seen in Cuba, China, Venezuela, North Korea, and Russia. This is also the reason why I think Marxism will always fail.

We have seen so called "anarchists" in AntiFa use authoritarian methods to suppress political opponents. Whether it's by punching political opponents, or the complete control of schools, you can not call those two things anarchist in any sense of the word .AntiFa is this way because they have already been corrupted by humans. And yet, AntiFa is the most liberal group of Marxists the world has seen. This is due to their relatively lax stance on religion (don't bring it to school), and gay rights (embrace it), this is definitely more liberal than Marxists of old who threw religious people and gays in Gulags.

That is just my take, as an AnCap. -Willem van Piets, president of Janszoonia.

[Orostan]

I notice that Marxian economics got a plurality of votes in the poll.

I have an honest question. Why has a Marxist society never successfully come to fruition? We have seen several cases where the radical left takes a government over, but then fails to accomplish its goals. They collapse into authoritarianism, or individual leaders take advantage of the system to secure their own power, or the economy plunges and people revolt, or they transition back to capitalism, etc. There are always convenient explanations that are given by Marxists. If only Stalin had never shown up, then the USSR would've been successful! Venezuela's movement was doomed by American economic imperialism. The Chinese Communist Party is a piecemeal organization that betrayed its roots. North Korea's leaders never adopted (and perhaps never believed in) true communism. Cuba had to become a dictatorship to weed out capitalist influences. Different arguments, all pointing out how successful a revolution could've been if only things had gone right.

These perspectives all contain flaws though. The fact that nearly all communist revolutions have produced authoritarian states is a testament to how susceptible their theories are to do the age-old truism: power corrupts. And even in regards to the situations where communist states were harmed by western embargoes, isn't the point of their revolutions to reject capitalism and show that another way forward is possible? Why is Venezuela being held back by America if Chavez and Maduro wanted to have independence from our economic circle? Are they looking for development assistance from capitalist countries? At some point, it stops being the "west's fault."

Whenever I point out to communists that genuine progress in economic/social equality can be made through socially democratic reforms, they are quick to emphasize that problems still persist and that no amount of non-revolutionary action can get the job done. Efforts in a market society to reduce poverty, guarantee health care, and boost economic equality, no matter how successful, are not enough in the absence of rebellion. If we are to apply this standard of absolutism to social democracies, however, I will apply the same to the twentieth century's communist experiments. When people are still suffering and have lost their political liberties, whatever you're proposing isn't enough.

Two examples off the top of my head of socialism "working":

-Allende's Chile
-Sankara's Burkino Faso

It would help if US backed coups didn't destroy leftist governments, too.

[Kibbutz Unions]

I notice that Marxian economics got a plurality of votes in the poll.

I have an honest question. Why has a Marxist society never successfully come to fruition? We have seen several cases where the radical left takes a government over, but then fails to accomplish its goals. They collapse into authoritarianism, or individual leaders take advantage of the system to secure their own power, or the economy plunges and people revolt, or they transition back to capitalism, etc. There are always convenient explanations that are given by Marxists. If only Stalin had never shown up, then the USSR would've been successful! Venezuela's movement was doomed by American economic imperialism. The Chinese Communist Party is a piecemeal organization that betrayed its roots. North Korea's leaders never adopted (and perhaps never believed in) true communism. Cuba had to become a dictatorship to weed out capitalist influences. Different arguments, all pointing out how successful a revolution could've been if only things had gone right.

These perspectives all contain flaws though. The fact that nearly all communist revolutions have produced authoritarian states is a testament to how susceptible their theories are to do the age-old truism: power corrupts. And even in regards to the situations where communist states were harmed by western embargoes, isn't the point of their revolutions to reject capitalism and show that another way forward is possible? Why is Venezuela being held back by America if Chavez and Maduro wanted to have independence from our economic circle? Are they looking for development assistance from capitalist countries? At some point, it stops being the "west's fault."

Whenever I point out to communists that genuine progress in economic/social equality can be made through socially democratic reforms, they are quick to emphasize that problems still persist and that no amount of non-revolutionary action can get the job done. Efforts in a market society to reduce poverty, guarantee health care, and boost economic equality, no matter how successful, are not enough in the absence of rebellion. If we are to apply this standard of absolutism to social democracies, however, I will apply the same to the twentieth century's communist experiments. When people are still suffering and have lost their political liberties, whatever you're proposing isn't enough.

Two examples off the top of my head of socialism "working":

-Allende's Chile
-Sankara's Burkino Faso

It would help if US backed coups didn't destroy leftist governments, too.

Also:
-Mapai-led Israel
-Pre-Stalin Soviet Union
-Tito's Yugoslavia
-Anarchist Spain
-Norway (Yeah yeah, it's considered more of a Social-Democracy but honestly it's borderline Socialist)
-I'd argue, to an extent, Cuba
-Kerala
-Albania?
-Nowdays, Rojava seems to benefit the people of Syria

I'm certain there are other examples too, but whatever...

[Janszoonia]

Two examples off the top of my head of socialism "working":

-Allende's Chile
-Sankara's Burkino Faso

It would help if US backed coups didn't destroy leftist governments, too.

Also:
-Mapai-led Israel
-Pre-Stalin Soviet Union
-Tito's Yugoslavia
-Anarchist Spain
-Norway (Yeah yeah, it's considered more of a Social-Democracy but honestly it's borderline Socialist)
-I'd argue, to an extent, Cuba
-Kerala
-Albania?
-Nowdays, Rojava seems to benefit the people of Syria

I'm certain there are other examples too, but whatever...

-Mapai-led Israel Capitalist enough to avoid a coup.
-Pre-Stalin Soviet Union Too short.
-Tito's Yugoslavia I'll give you that.
-Anarchist Spain Orwell criticized it.
-Norway (Yeah yeah, it's considered more of a Social-Democracy but honestly it's borderline Socialist) It is DemSoc
-I'd argue, to an extent, Cuba No
-Kerala DemSoc
-Albania? No
-Nowdays, Rojava seems to benefit the people of Syria DemSoc