Socialism vs. Capitalism

[Tetro Kornbluth]

     I guess the way I try to think of it is in terms of Smithian economics versus Marxist economics. So:

option 1 -- 100% Smithian
option 2 -- 75/25 Smithian
option 3 -- 50/50
option 4 -- 75/25 Marxist

     Of course, that's not really any less vague than it would be otherwise.

kind of a stupid continuum considering Smith was one of Marx's main influences and they agreed on some key points - like estrangement of labour.

The whole the British Political Economy tradition was one of Marx's major influences in itself (not just Smith, but Ricardo and others as well; Marx was a great intellectual synthesizer of early 19th Century ideas).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Much more David Ricardo than Adam Smith. (Smith's theory of value was rather ambiguous. Indeed, it's not even clear to what extent he had a coherent value theory.)

And yes; Marx was a brilliant synthesizer of the worst parts of early 19th century thought.

Not a Hegel fan then?

Of course I was being very general, my knowledge of Marxian economics is not the greatest, I know more about the materialist-Hegelian side of his thought.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Just to throw out scenarios (as is my wont nowadays) - there is a decently reasonable scenario out there in my mind whereby the present form of European/US socialism is fundamentally destroyed/altered by the culmination of present economic events.  I actually don't think it can last *that* much longer anyways - present events are just pushing forward the event horizon, so to speak.

As to what will replace it, I have no clue.  Could be something more "capitalistic" or something more "socialistic" or something completely outside these boundaries...

Wait a minute.... are you saying there is at present a form of "socialism" in the US or Europe? Where is this thing, it seems to have vanished all together?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay then, you meant state control/welfare vs "the deregulated market" (not that I didn't think that wasn't what you meant originally; I'm just doubtful of whether the word "socialism" or even "capitalism" can apply to such a system. Yes, I am big on semantics. It also involves a dichotomy I particularly dislike, simply because it assumes we all be 'capitalists' if there wasn't a state in the way - for Middle Class Americans, Perhaps...).

In saying that I doubt, even given the worst case scenario, the "socialism" you refer to will be destroyed, at least if it did, it would take alot more than that down with it. I will refrain from commenting more, simply because I haven't been paying as much attention to the situation as I probably should be.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

In saying that I doubt, even given the worst case scenario, the "socialism" you refer to will be destroyed, at least if it did, it would take alot more than that down with it.

Well, in that it would be destroyed, something else would certainly replace it, although that might take some time.

And of course, a lot more would be taken down than just those "nets" - don't disagree there one bit.

On #1: Yes, certainly. But I doubt whatever it is, it would be American-style "capitalism" in the pure sense that is recognizable to Americans - though no European at present at least of any intelligence considers themselves living in anything other than a "capitalist society". There is simply too much history, culture, social values, etc against that.

#2: Well that's pretty obvious here. Remember the countries we talking about. (I should add when I writing this I'm mainly - though not exclusively - thinking of France).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does there need to be world government for "socialism" (however you define it) - couldn't one say that for "capitalism" (however you define it) as well? Perhaps not, the USSR and the USA occasionally cut economic deals after all

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are all those "socialist" policies? In reality, or State welfarist? or paternalist? or various other imaginary "ists" that could be invented but our only staid words? No "Socialist" state ever won the people; except perhaps China during the Cultural Revolution and a couple of the 3rd World Socialist uprisings - and the leaders then were insane. The problem is that people want to force their will upon others; perhaps what is more desirable is some form of communitarian "drop-out" (but non-hippie-ish, please) society. In the Socialist-Capitalist dictonomy the "socialist" state must force things to happen - like welfare services, etc which wouldn't happen in a "capitalist order" - implying to some extent the capitalist order is the nature of things without the interfering state. But in reality, I don't believe that to be case.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why speak of nation states? Why speak of scarce resources? Resources are only scarce relative to our wants and needs. Perhaps my quest is more metaphysical, against certain aspects of human behaviour - "natural" or "socially constructed" it doesn't matter too much, it's probably a bit of both - that have brought this particularly unreal and maddening worldview. Medieval Monks had more sense, well when they weren't paying for personal concubines anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Completly arbitrary categories, the best thing to ask is why do we want we don't need?. Often it is for social goals or "benevolent (ha!) egotism". The people who got us into this economic mess were very driven (unlike me), very talented, fairly intelligent at least relative to what they were doing... but they were driven by desires, not rationality. What sort of person wants a CEO salary anyway? Isn't that the root and cause of this mess?

Your emphasis on competition is maddening too; perhaps it is proof that macroeconomics creates reality, rather than describing it (which it patently does not - and don't get me into that "individualist conservative morality designed as social Science (with a big S)" that is the Austrian School. What japes!)

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I guess, I guess... semantics are problem. I was to a more general form of "socialism" which meant "everything in common" (what a nightmare!) or something like that. It is a great tightrope walk, everyone falls down eventually.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Greed? I can't say I care much for him. Though I must say there is something much too flat of this view of humanity... not that it isn't true, for the most part though individuals are more various and stranger than that, but flat.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed. That is our problem, good we agree.

Now the next question is: why care about such tools?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Poetic and Beautiful. Much too poetic and beautiful to be true.