News Spain 1936-1937: Libertarian Socialism & Its Demise

[TubbaBlubba]

The man who is more productive than his fellow workers is not producing according to his ability and therefore deserves to be paid less? How does this make any sense at all?

I would assume that he means that this more productive worker has a capability to produce more than his fellow workers, and thus should use this capability to the fullest extent for equal pay.

Not saying I entirely agree with it, but I can see the reasoning behind it.

 

[vertices]

Slavery has existed in many economic systems, far less in capitalism than otherwise.

Well capitalism is unique that need to generate 'capital' is the be all and end all. As such, it is an economic system that is more predisposed and vulnerable to exploitation and slavery. It would seem that the US was built on slaves quite literally, and it is also clear all subsequent 'economic growth' was a result of de-facto slavery.

BTW, I am not a "socialist-communist".

 

[mheslep]

All the premises and conclusions above are false.

 

[vici10]

I do not really have any problem with the idea of socialism or communism. I only take issue with what appears to be rather ridiculous ideas of how such systems should be implemented.

If you would like to know how socialists/communists/anarchists envision future society and if you like science fiction I would recommend Efremov's "Andromeda"
http://www.iefremov.ru/translations/Androm1.htm"

or "The Dispossessed" by Ursula K. Le Guin
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0061054887/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[vertices]

All the premises and conclusions above are false.

So the enslavement and defacto enslavement of people was not motivated at all by capitalism?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If you would like to know how socialists/communists/anarchists envision future society and if you like science fiction I would recommend Efremov's "Andromeda"
http://www.iefremov.ru/translations/Androm1.htm"

or "The Dispossessed" by Ursula K. Le Guin
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0061054887/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Thank you. I am familiar with Le Guin, I have enjoyed what I have read of hers. I think that the only utopian fiction I have read was Well's Men Like Gods but that was a rather far flung future. Greg Bear has envisioned somewhat utopian societies in his fiction though there is always "trouble in paradise" and questions of the ethics of the system.

Personally I think that we will eventually find ourselves a sort of technocratic socialist system. I am unsure how it might work or how it could come about but it seems a reasonable likelihood to me.

 

[mikelepore]

What does "under capitalism" mean? Capitalism isn't an imposed economic system like socialism or communism. We don't live "under" it.

I've pointed out numerous times in this forum that it is far more accurate to describe capitalism as the lack of an economic system (not one itself), since capitalism is the result of the lack of any economic system being imposed.

That's partially true in the sense that we have capitalism by default, we have it because no other conscious choice for designing a new economic system was made. Centuries ago the rising class of business owners led the drive to push out the monarchy and nobility, the previous system in which ownership of the means of production meant being a feudal lord. At that time capitalism was what we would get automatically when the vestiges of feudalism are erased. That step was revolutionary and progressive for its time.

But since then capitalism has become the systematic rule of society by concentrated wealth. Its effects have been widely recognized: uncontrollable boom-and-bust cycles in the economy, workers' real wages repeatedly gravitating back to the mere subsistence level despite huge productivity increases, wars being fought over markets, sources of raw materials and trade routes, hundreds of social problem ranging from pollution to dangerous products to political corruption being traced to the obsession to maximize profits. Capitalism is now a giant mechanism of unintended consequences.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The man who is more productive than his fellow workers is not producing according to his ability and therefore deserves to be paid less? How does this make any sense at all?

DeLeon would argue that, yes. His "Fifteen Questions" is a fairly clear, albeit rhetoric-heavy, description of what he thinks. (Certainly more so than Marx, who wrote like he was getting paid by the word)

The way to think of his model is "An A For Effort". In DeLeon's model, innate differences in ability are not the fault or responsibilities of the workers, so they should not gain or lose any benefit from these differences. The only thing that matters is how hard one works: effort is what matters, not outcomes.

Friedman would argue that this won't work - if you have two barbers, one skilled and one unskilled, people will want to go to the more skilled one. In a market economy, the way that this imbalance is handled is that the more skilled barber can charge more until his client base is small enough to handle, and each consumer decides how much more money a better haircut is worth and choosing their barber accordingly. He would also argue that this gives incentive to the second barber to improve his skills, and thereby gain more money. Friedman would argue that in a market economy, there would be better haircuts.

DeLeon focuses mostly on production, and doesn't spend much time on consumption.

 

[Vanadium 50]

But since then capitalism has become the systematic rule of society by concentrated wealth. Its effects have been widely recognized: uncontrollable boom-and-bust cycles in the economy, workers' real wages repeatedly gravitating back to the mere subsistence level despite huge

Boom and bust is caused by capitalism? How do you explain episodic abandonment in ancient societies? I am having a hard time imagining, say the Mount Builders as closet capitalists.

As far as "workers' real wages repeatedly gravitating back to the mere subsistence level", wouldn't that argue that the average South Korean is in worse financial shape than the average North Korean?

 

[mikelepore]

DeLeon in his "15 Questions" argued that this was not confiscation, as the "owners" were not the true owners at all - everything is truly owned by the workers.

What happened on that occasion was that DeLeon (1852-1914), who taught law at Columbia University before he quit to become a full-time socialist newspaper editor, was nitpicking about the legal meaning of the word "confiscation." Supposing that the country uses the amendment clause of the Constitution to include a declaration of this kind: labor produces the social wealth, labor is entitled to all that it produces, therefore an association of the workers is recognized as the rightful administration of the industries. He was arguing that this kind of transfer of property doesn't match the legal meaning of the word "confiscation."

And we've seen what happens when the owners object - that's why they have prisons. And graveyards.

Regarding prisons and graveyards, no doubt you're referring to the monstrosity of 20th century "communism." The writings of Marx have the defect that he spent 99.9 percent of his time writing about the past and present, and he said only a few words in his entire life about the two most important subjects: what kind of future system is being proposed, and what method is suggested for implementing it. Therefore on the subject of post-revolutionary society, there is mainly the absense of what he said, not the availability of it. Therefore I phrase this negatively: Marx never said a single thing that could be construed to mean that there should be one-party "elections", secret police, political imprisonment, censorship, denial of freedom of religion, and other repressive actions. However, the various places where Marx speaks of democracy as a cure-all, and in particular he calls for democratic self-management by the workers, suggests that Leninism and its variants are perversions of Marx's ideas. In other words, tyrants and dictators adopted terms like "socialist" only in the same way that they adopted the terms "liberty", "justice", and "the republic", i.e., to be self-congratulatory. Accordingly, there is today an increasing tendency on the left to take the position that no country has ever tried genuine socialism.

DeLeon would argue that the more productive worker was not producing according to his ability and deserved to be paid less.

After you posted that, other here began trying to figure out its meaning. Such a paraphrase isn't recognizable to me, and I suspect that it's inaccurate. DeLeon's speeches and writings are online in Adobe pdf format at slp.org.

 

[vici10]

Personally I think that we will eventually find ourselves a sort of technocratic socialist system. I am unsure how it might work or how it could come about but it seems a reasonable likelihood to me.

Talking about technocratic socialism, Edward Bellamy's book "Looking Backward" was quite influential in the turn of 19-20th century.
http://books.google.com/books?id=xp...resnum=3&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false"

Another important advocate of technocratic socialism is Thorstein Veblen. He emphasises the conflict between the creative urge of the working man and control of it by the bussinessmen. This is a link to his book "Engineers and Price System.""socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/veblen/Engineers.pdf"[/URL] In it he advocates for the Soviets (Councils) of engineers.
His famous quote:
[QUOTE]
All business sagacity reduces itself in the last analysis to judicious use of sabotage.
[/QUOTE]
He also author of the quote "Invention is the mother of necessity."
He sees the conflict between creativity and power, i.e between industry and business.

 

[mikelepore]

Boom and bust is caused by capitalism? How do you explain episodic abandonment in ancient societies? I am having a hard time imagining, say the Mount Builders as closet capitalists.

As far as "workers' real wages repeatedly gravitating back to the mere subsistence level", wouldn't that argue that the average South Korean is in worse financial shape than the average North Korean?

I don't know anything about those specific you mentioned. I'm not qualified to answer about them. However, the general Marxian interpretation of business cycles is that capitalism features what Marx called the "crisis of overproduction." Economic deprivation is artificial. The workers have to suffer because they have produced too much. Not too much to use; too much to be sold. Business has a tendency to pay the workers wages that are insufficient to buy back their own products. The warehouses get too full relative to the buying power of the workers. This causes jobs to be eliminated, which further reduces the workers' spending power, which causes still more layoffs. The system spirals downward, out of control.

 

[mheslep]

So the enslavement and defacto enslavement of people was not motivated at all by capitalism?

Non-sequitor. That is not what you said above in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2757891&postcount=202".

 

[mheslep]

If the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorstein_Veblen#cite_ref-1" from sociologist G.A. Fine is accurate, then Veblen is little more than a eccentric fraud:

Scholars continue to debate exactly what he meant in his convoluted, ironic and satiric essays; he made heavy use of examples of primitive societies, but many examples were pure invention.

 

[vici10]

mheslep, your judjment of whole Veblen's works by small reference from wikipedia is amazing, without reading any of Veblen's works, without knowing of his contribution to economics you called him "eccentric fraud". Veblen very well maybe called eccentric, but fraud it is just a name calling.

John Kenneth Galbraith, for example, borrowed a lot from Veblen. Veblen has also laid ground for institutional school of economics.

So before doing such statements I advise you to read about history of economics and something beyond Milton Friedman's popular books.

 

[vertices]

Non-sequitor. That is not what you said above in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2757891&postcount=202".

Okay let me elaborate.

That America was built, in large part, on the back of slaves is kind of obvious.

What is less obvious is how de facto slavery contributed toward America's economic growth in the Industrial Revolution - this was achieved by effectively criminalising black life, creating a pool a dispensable labour that could be put to work in mills and mines. Today, de facto slavery arises from the War on Drugs (where a perceived superfluous population is incarcerated so that they can be exploited).

And ofcourse, everyone knows about sweatshops in Third World, etc - a form of child slavery.

My point is simply that capitalism by its very nature relies on and fosters exploitation. This is more of an observation than a value-judgement.

 

[Al68]

But since then capitalism has become the systematic rule of society by concentrated wealth.

Obviously false. A "ruled" society, regardless of the particular example, is by definition not free market capitalism.

Its effects have been widely recognized: uncontrollable boom-and-bust cycles in the economy, workers' real wages repeatedly gravitating back to the mere subsistence level despite huge productivity increases, wars being fought over markets, sources of raw materials and trade routes, hundreds of social problem ranging from pollution to dangerous products to political corruption being traced to the obsession to maximize profits. Capitalism is now a giant mechanism of unintended consequences.

Those "effects" have been fallaciously "recognized" by Marxists. The actual effects are clear and obvious: greater prosperity and standard of living for working people. Not just greater, but a completely different ballpark altogether.

The "subsistence level" you refer to costs but a small fraction of a worker's income instead of consuming all of it like it used to to maintain a standard of living not even close to that enjoyed today by workers.

And the "capitalist profits" that Marxists are so obsessed with are a trivial amount of money compared to the benefits. And most of that "money" doesn't represent the consumption of material wealth, it represents economic investment. The economic efficiency gained is worth many, many times more to working people's standard of living than the value of the profit margin itself.

The standard of living enjoyed by workers today because of capitalism would probably even shock Marx right out of his delusions. I'd bet if he woke up in today's U.S. and saw the results of capitalism, he would end up just killing himself when he realized how many millions endured lives of poverty unnecessarily due to his followers in other countries gaining political power.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

DeLeon would argue that, yes. His "Fifteen Questions" is a fairly clear, albeit rhetoric-heavy, description of what he thinks. (Certainly more so than Marx, who wrote like he was getting paid by the word)

The way to think of his model is "An A For Effort". In DeLeon's model, innate differences in ability are not the fault or responsibilities of the workers, so they should not gain or lose any benefit from these differences. The only thing that matters is how hard one works: effort is what matters, not outcomes.

Friedman would argue that this won't work - if you have two barbers, one skilled and one unskilled, people will want to go to the more skilled one. In a market economy, the way that this imbalance is handled is that the more skilled barber can charge more until his client base is small enough to handle, and each consumer decides how much more money a better haircut is worth and choosing their barber accordingly. He would also argue that this gives incentive to the second barber to improve his skills, and thereby gain more money. Friedman would argue that in a market economy, there would be better haircuts.

DeLeon focuses mostly on production, and doesn't spend much time on consumption.

Thank you for the clarification. While I can see the "logic" I still do not see it being very reasonable. And here I thought that Harrison Bergeron was an exaggeration of "communist" thought.
I'll have to read Deleon at some point as Mikelepore suggests. I hope the PDFs are short though since reading by computer screen really messes with my eyes.

Talking about technocratic socialism, Edward Bellamy's book "Looking Backward" was quite influential in the turn of 19-20th century.
http://books.google.com/books?id=xp...resnum=3&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false"

Another important advocate of technocratic socialism is Thorstein Veblen. He emphasises the conflict between the creative urge of the working man and control of it by the bussinessmen. This is a link to his book "Engineers and Price System.""socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/veblen/Engineers.pdf"[/URL] In it he advocates for the Soviets (Councils) of engineers.
His famous quote:

He also author of the quote "Invention is the mother of necessity."
He sees the conflict between creativity and power, i.e between industry and business.[/QUOTE]
Bellamy seems rather readable from that excerpt. His style reminds me of Fort, though lacking that certain mania.

On the matter of technological advance and individual creativity I am fairly hopeful. In my rants on copyright and intellectual property I have been rather depressed by the corporation's creation of a cultural institution out of a legal fiction primarily to their own benefit. I am fully behind the intention of the original limited copyright that an individual may profit from their intellectual creations before it is subsumed into the "intellectual property" of human culture. I find it a bit ironic that the technological advances of these same corporations have made it possible for creators of intellectual property to share their work with the world directly without the corporate middleman. Certain technological advances which I have heard about leave me hopeful that engineers and inventors may eventually be capable of this as well.

 

[vici10]

Bellamy seems rather readable from that excerpt. His style reminds me of Fort, though lacking that certain mania.

I have never heard of Fort before. What did he write about? Is it worth reading?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I have never heard of Fort before. What did he write about? Is it worth reading?

Haha.. that would be Charles Fort. He wrote about strange and unexplained phenomena. If you are not familiar with the name you may be familiar with the term "fortean", especially in conjunction with things such as rains of frogs.

 

[mheslep]

mheslep, your judjment of whole Veblen's works by small reference from wikipedia is amazing, without reading any of Veblen's works, without knowing of his contribution to economics you called him "eccentric fraud". Veblen very well maybe called eccentric, but fraud it is just a name calling...

I made no such 'judgement' of the 'whole of Veblen's work. I posted a quote, supposedly based on Fine's criticism, the Veblen had fabricated material. Engage that if you like because the strawman is tiresome.

 

[mheslep]

Okay let me elaborate.

That America was built, in large part, on the back of slaves is kind of obvious.

No, it means in large part you don't have any idea what you are talking about on this subject, and can't be bothered to do any research to improve that situation.

 

[mikelepore]

DeLeon would argue that, yes. His "Fifteen Questions" is a fairly clear, albeit rhetoric-heavy, description of what he thinks. (Certainly more so than Marx, who wrote like he was getting paid by the word)

The way to think of his model is "An A For Effort". In DeLeon's model, innate differences in ability are not the fault or responsibilities of the workers, so they should not gain or lose any benefit from these differences. The only thing that matters is how hard one works: effort is what matters, not outcomes.

De Leon also says, in his "Fifteen Questions" (1914), answer to question #3, that having too many people volunteering for one job and to few few people volunteering for another job, and what must be done in the way of readjusting their incomes to influence those choices, is the main indicator of how much effort or strenuosity is involved in each kind of work. Giving an example of a roailroad, he writes: "Conductors and motormen are wanted ... There will be wanted an equal number of each ... 400 workers apply for the function of conductor, while only 50 apply for the function of motorman, it would follow that 1 hour of a motorman's function consumes as much tissue as do 8 hours of a conductor's." He goes onto argue that adjusting their relative incomes to attract more people to the positions where they are needed _is_ the action of compensating individuals for their effort. "Deflection of applicants from the conductors' to the motormen's function would set in." -- "If, say, in the final adjustment 2 hours of the motorman's function are equal to 4 of the conductor's, then the voucher for labor performed, that is, for contribution made to the social store, paid out to the motorman for 2 hours' work will enable him to draw from the social store as much wealth as the voucher paid out to the conductor for 4 hours' work."

He even identifies that as a use of the law of supply and demand, although it is in a setting of social ownership of the industries.

Friedman would argue that this won't work - if you have two barbers, one skilled and one unskilled, people will want to go to the more skilled one. In a market economy, the way that this imbalance is handled is that the more skilled barber can charge more until his client base is small enough to handle, and each consumer decides how much more money a better haircut is worth and choosing their barber accordingly. He would also argue that this gives incentive to the second barber to improve his skills, and thereby gain more money. Friedman would argue that in a market economy, there would be better haircuts.

If Friedman's principle were true, the business owner becoming whatever one's customers want one to be, then I think we would have found that the metaphor "used car salesman" would be used to indicate someone that you can always rely onto be completely honest, and yet most people have perceived something otherwise.

DeLeon focuses mostly on production, and doesn't spend much time on consumption.

At the point of consumption, DeLeon (and, more generally, DeLeon's whole political party) endorsed the suggestion taken from Marx's pamphlet "Critique of the Gotha Program." The proposal was to have a new kind of currency such that the amount that we possesses to spend at the store is directly traceable to the number of hours that we worked to acquire it. The price of the article at the store would be in units of hours or minutes, as a result of industry having measured the work time required for all the steps performed by many people in producing that article. The buyer would redeem a credit for personal work time to acquire the article. Marx described the compensation of the individual in this way: "He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost." Today, the supporters of that idea say "an account in a computer" instead of a paper certificate; otherwise the idea hasn't changed much.

 

[vici10]

I made no such 'judgement' of the 'whole of Veblen's work. I posted a quote, supposed based on Fine's criticism, the Veblen had fabricated material. Engage that if you like because the strawman is tiresome.

Then please quote Veblen where he fabricates material.

 

[Tim67]

The standard of living enjoyed by workers today because of capitalism would probably even shock Marx right out of his delusions. I'd bet if he woke up in today's U.S. and saw the results of capitalism, he would end up just killing himself when he realized how many millions endured lives of poverty unnecessarily due to his followers in other countries gaining political power.

That standard of living exists because of socialism. It was industrial action, organized and influenced by socialism, which forced the ruling classes to capitulate to workers and institute the quasi-socialist reforms and social benefits which led to that standard of living. Marxism, being the most popular form of socialism, deserves a great deal of thanks for that.

 

[vertices]

No, it means in large part you don't have any idea what you are talking about on this subject, and can't be bothered to do any research to improve that situation.

What motivated the transatlantic slave trade? This isn't exactly theoretical physics, requiring in depth "research".

And again, I was just making an observation about capitalism that is painfully obvious.

 

[mheslep]

Then please quote Veblen where he fabricates material.

Again:

Engage that [sociologist G.A. Fine] if you like because the strawman is tiresome

 

[mheslep]

What motivated the transatlantic slave trade? This isn't exactly theoretical physics, requiring in depth "research"

Sure we can discuss that ( a different topic), though I don't see the relevance. My objection is not to the fact of the existence of transatlantic slave trade, but these sweeping assertions:

It would seem that the US was built on slaves quite literally, and it is also clear all subsequent 'economic growth' was a result of de-facto slavery

.

and again:

[...]That America was built, in large part, on the back of slaves is kind of obvious.

[highlights mine]
We know the British and Spanish colonies in N. America had chattel slavery for a time, likewise so did parts of the early United States, and so did all parts of the planet if we go back far enough in human history. This is not in dispute. Taking the fact the slavery existed in some places and some times but not in others, and then making the leap that it is somehow "obvious" that today's trillions of dollars worth of widely dispersed US wealth and infrastructure is 'in large part' 'built on' slaves is certainly dubious without any checking on the development of US economics and, as it turns out upon a little review, wrong.

 

[vici10]

mheslep,

I would not engage G.A. Fine because he never claimed that Veblen is a fraud or "the Veblen had fabricated material". It seems that you have not read Fine's article. These are your claims, based on some dubious quote from wikipedia.
If you still think that Veblen is a fraud, I would like to see some proof. If not, I consider this issue to be closed.

 

[mheslep]

mheslep,

I would not engage G.A. Fine because he never claimed that Veblen is a fraud or "the Veblen had fabricated material". It seems that you have not read Fine's article. These are your claims, based on some dubious quote from wikipedia.

I claim only, again, that Wikipedia states, supposedly based on Fine's reference, that Veblen's 'many examples' of 'primitive societies' were 'pure invention'. Yes Wiki is an unreliable source. But I don't see any other reviews of Veblen's work in this thread either.

Edit:
Wiki appears accurate:
Thorstein Veblen: Critical Assessments, Volume 1
John Cunningham Wood

Two comments are in order. (1) Veblen's remarks on the Savage State are not based on a study of concrete primitive societies. They are essentially "conjectural history" or imaginary anthropology. [...]

http://books.google.com/books?id=7v...AEwBw#v=onepage&q=primitive societies&f=false

 

[vici10]

Neither the wikipedia articrle nor the quotes you suggest call Veblen a fraud, or accuse him of fabricating materials. These are your conclusions alone.

 

[mheslep]

Neither the wikipedia articrle nor the quotes you suggest call Veblen a fraud, or accuse him of fabricating materials. These are your conclusions alone.

"Pure invention" of primitive societies is not fraud? What is it then?

 

[vici10]

"Pure invention" of primitive societies is not fraud? What is it then?

Imagining what could be based on limited information in the time (remember anthropology and archeology were in their infancy at the time) and fraudulently covering the truth with lies are two different things.

 

[mheslep]

Imagining what could be based on limited information in the time (remember anthropology and archeology were in their infancy at the time) and fraudulently covering the truth with lies are two different things.

Agreed. However, asserting that imagination is in fact a reality upon which one builds an argument is very much a lie, and a not uncommon one in my experience.

 

[Al68]

That standard of living exists because of socialism. It was industrial action, organized and influenced by socialism, which forced the ruling classes to capitulate to workers and institute the quasi-socialist reforms and social benefits which led to that standard of living. Marxism, being the most popular form of socialism, deserves a great deal of thanks for that.

Complete nonsense. Socialist policy did absolutely nothing to increase overall productivity, which is responsible for the higher standard of living. And "ruling classes" don't exist in free market capitalism, that's just another Marxist fiction used to mislead people who don't know any better.

Capitalism is good enough at creating prosperity to overcome a little socialist drain on the economy. But history shows what happens when Marxist ideology dominates a country: mass poverty happens. And the reason is clear: people by nature are many times more productive when they benefit directly from their productivity.

 

[Al68]

What motivated the transatlantic slave trade? This isn't exactly theoretical physics, requiring in depth "research".

And again, I was just making an observation about capitalism that is painfully obvious.

No, you made no observation about capitalism. You made an observation of something that happened in the same country that capitalism happened, and made an absurd and illogical connection. Big difference.

Slavery is anti-free market capitalism, as were many activities in the U.S. historically, and many things today.

It amazes me how so many people blame the results of anti-capitalist activities on capitalism because they happen in a country that is generally capitalist. That especially applies to much more current problems, as discussed in many other threads.

 

[Tim67]

Complete nonsense. Socialist policy did absolutely nothing to increase overall productivity, which is responsible for the higher standard of living. And "ruling classes" don't exist in free market capitalism, that's just another Marxist fiction used to mislead people who don't know any better.

Socialist policy (minimum wage, the empowerment of labor unions, etc.) caused that production to be more efficiently distributed, which is what led to the higher standard of living. In the Gilded Age, a comparative free-market economic era, people were literally willing to die to form labor unions - something tells me living standards were not so great.

And of course there is a ruling class. Bismarck wasn't part of a ruling class? FDR wasn't part of a ruling class? Come on now.

Capitalism is good enough at creating prosperity to overcome a little socialist drain on the economy. But history shows what happens when Marxist ideology dominates a country: mass poverty happens. And the reason is clear: people by nature are many times more productive when they benefit directly from their productivity.

Just about every standard of living metric improved under Communism in Soviet Russia and Maoist China, which are really the only two large-scale Communist economies you can use as examples.

 

[Al68]

Socialist policy (minimum wage, the empowerment of labor unions, etc.) caused that production to be more efficiently distributed, which is what led to the higher standard of living.

No, it isn't. Not even close.

And of course there is a ruling class. Bismarck wasn't part of a ruling class? FDR wasn't part of a ruling class? Come on now.

I said there was no ruling class in free market capitalism. FDR was "ruling class" only to the degree he executed socialist policies. FDR is your example of a free market capitalist? Come on, now, FDR's only role in capitalism as president was to impede it with socialist policies.

Just about every standard of living metric improved under Communism in Soviet Russia and Maoist China, which are really the only two large-scale Communist economies you can use as examples.

Sure, the standard of living improved worldwide, but much less so in those countries than in capitalist ones.

While their propaganda told a different story at the time, Soviet Russia and Communist China were way behind the U.S. as far as standard of living for the average Joe, as everyone now knows.

But it does surprise me that you actually picked legitimately representative countries as examples of large scale Marxist governments. Many on this forum resort to using Sweden, etc, as their example to compare to the U.S.

 

[mikelepore]

About this myth of our fabulous standard of living that capitalism has allegedly provided.

Working people in the U.S. have a higher standard of living than the working people in some other countries due to geographical factors and certain unrepeatable historical factors. European society was transplanted here abruptly around the time that the age of machanization was beginning in Europe. The settlers were able to take about ten million square kilometers of land away from its previous owners by force. The amount of timber seemed to be infinite. There was so much available land that anyone who wanted to try farming or ranching could acquire thousands of acres cheaply. The land was fertile and the climate was temperate for agriculture. Agriculture developed quickly as the settlers were permitted to kidnap people in other lands and put them into slavery. Because mining and quarrying were new, minerals in the ground were still close to the surface. For fishing and transportation, there were two very large seacoasts, some very long rivers - principally the Mississippi, and some lakes that are so large they they are often described as internal seas. Such geographical conditions were like shots of vitamins for industrial development. As a result, the working class in the U.S. temporarily acquired a standard of living that is more comfortable than the standard of living in some underdeveloped countries.

It is a mistake to give capitalism the credit for the higher standard of living generated by these matters of pure luck, that is, geographical factors and nonrepeatable historical incidents.

In any country, it is also a mistake to give capitalism the credit for any continuous improvements in the standard of living that are due to scientific discoveries, as though any particular economic system could be responsible for the properties of electrons, chemical compounds, etc. We are at a point in history marked by rapid scientific learning. People in any economic system would receive the benefit from this.

Finally, it is a mistake to rely on the anecdotal evidence offered by some people to conclude that the standard of living in the U.S. has been rising at all in recent decades. Just as untrustworthy, because it is also anecdotal, would be my own experience that the standard of living in the U.S. has been dropping steadily for the past half-century. What I have observed is that, in the 1950s and 1960s, a family with just one wage earner, who had a high school diploma, could afford to buy a house, pay it off early, and go on an annual vacation, roughly the same purchasing power as a family today with two college-educated wage earners; that is a very sharp drop in the standard of living.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

About this myth of our fabulous standard of living that capitalism has allegedly provided.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html

Is this non-anecdotal enough?

 

[mheslep]

About this myth of our fabulous standard of living that capitalism has allegedly provided.

Working people in the U.S. have a higher standard of living than the working people in some other countries due to geographical factors and certain unrepeatable historical factors.

It seems to me that the USSR had substantially greater natural resources at its disposal than did the US, yet never demonstrated much increase in standard of living while destroying or mismanaging its natural resources and murdering millions of its own.

As an aside, I find it curious as to why we continually see these long posts making dozens of claims about the breadth and width of history of the US and its economics, almost always without a single reference.

 

[vici10]

It seems to me that the USSR had substantially greater natural resources at its disposal than did the US, yet never demonstrated much increase in standard of living while destroying or mismanaging its natural resources and murdering millions of its own.

I would like to see some data that suports your claims. It would be beneficial to know.

As an aside, I find it curious as to why we continually see these long posts making dozens of claims about the breadth and width of history of the US and its economics, almost always without a single reference.

I have not seen you providing references for your claims above ever.

 

[mheslep]

I would like to see some data that suports your claims. It would be beneficial to know.

Which? USSR has large natural resources compared to the US? Murdered millions? Destroyed / damaged natural resources? All three?

I have not seen you providing references for your claims above ever.

Yes of course you have
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2760116&postcount=230

 

[vici10]

Which? USSR has large natural resources compared to the US? Murdered millions? Destroyed / damaged natural resources? All three?

Yes of course you have
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2760116&postcount=230

Playing around as usual? is it not clear enough? You said

It seems to me that the USSR had substantially greater natural resources at its disposal than did the US, yet never demonstrated much increase in standard of living while destroying or mismanaging its natural resources and murdering millions of its own.

I thought finding data would not be dificult enough, and please something more relaible than wikepidia, american propaganda, or googling several words wihout understanding its meaning. Everyone would benefit from the data that you would provide.

 

[mheslep]

Playing around as usual? is it not clear enough? You said

Your question is ambiguous as usual. My question was clear. I made three distinct claims in that post. Again: Are you interested in references for one of them, or all them?

 

[vici10]

Your question is ambiguous as usual. My question was clear. I made three distinct claims in that post. Again: Are you interested in references for all one of them, or all them?

Yes, for all of them.

 

[Al68]

About this myth of our fabulous standard of living that capitalism has allegedly provided.

It's basic economics, not myth, that wealth is created each time a voluntary economic transaction takes place. Free market capitalism is the voluntary trade of goods and services by definition.

In any country, it is also a mistake to give capitalism the credit for any continuous improvements in the standard of living that are due to scientific discoveries, as though any particular economic system could be responsible for the properties of electrons, chemical compounds, etc.

Nobody claims that an economic system is responsible for the properties of electrons. But it's certainly true that most practical inventions were invented for profit by private parties. The profit motive is a very powerful incentive, not just for creating wealth, but for inventing ways to create it more efficiently.

Finally, it is a mistake to rely on the anecdotal evidence offered by some people to conclude that the standard of living in the U.S. has been rising at all in recent decades. Just as untrustworthy, because it is also anecdotal, would be my own experience that the standard of living in the U.S. has been dropping steadily for the past half-century. What I have observed is that, in the 1950s and 1960s, a family with just one wage earner, who had a high school diploma, could afford to buy a house, pay it off early, and go on an annual vacation, roughly the same purchasing power as a family today with two college-educated wage earners; that is a very sharp drop in the standard of living.

The standard of living for people below the official poverty line in the U.S. is far greater than the overwhelming majority of people in the 1950s. One would have to be deaf, dumb, and blind not to see that.

As a final comment, I'm completely against any imposed economic system, including capitalism. That's why I use the phrase "free market capitalism" to be clear that I'm not talking about any imposed system, or anything even remotely like anything described by Marx. And I have no problem with people practicing socialism/communism if that's what they choose to do. People have done so throughout U.S. history.

What I am against is using force to deprive individuals of their ownership of their own labor like imposed communism/socialism/Marxism does. An individual's labor belongs to him, to control as he chooses. It does not belong to society or government.

 

[mheslep]

Before providing the sources below I want to restate that which I've posted in other threads on this topic: The Russian people did, and still do, have many characteristics that I'd greatly admire, especially the immigrants I've come to know well in the US, while I find that the former Soviet political system was one of the most evil catastrophes ever to befall mankind.

Environmental destruction in the USSR:

Time's World's Most Polluted Places
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1661031_1661028_1661021,00.html"

[...]The legacy of Cold War weapons programs has left environmental blackspots throughout the former Soviet Union, but Dzerzhinsk is by far the worst.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1661031_1661028_1661022,00.html"

[...]Norilsk was founded in 1935 as a Siberian slave labor camp, and life there has pretty much gone downhill since. Home to the world's largest heavy metal smelting complex, more than 4 million tons of cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, arsenic, selenium and zinc are released into the air every year. Air samples exceed the maximum allowance for both copper and nickel, and mortality from respiratory diseases is much higher than in Russia as a whole. "Within 30 miles (48 km) of the nickel smelter there's not a single living tree," says Fuller. "It's just a wasteland."

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1661031_1661028_1661024,00.html"

[...]Another legacy of the Soviet Union's utter disregard for the environment — Stalin once boasted that he could correct nature's mistakes —Sumgayit's many factories, while they were operational, released as much as 120,000 tons of harmful emissions, including mercury, into the air every year. Most of the factories have been shut down, but the pollutants remain — and no one is stepping up to take responsibility for them. "It's a huge, abandoned industrial wasteland," says Fuller.

Nuclear dumping into the ocean:

[...]Until 1990, the Soviet Navy routinely dumped radioactive waste in Far Eastern and Arctic waters. There were 13 areas of nuclear waste dumps in Arctic seas and 10 areas off-shore in the Russian Far East, according to Russian environmentalists Alexander Emelianenkov and Andrei Zolotkov. Their data suggest that between 1964 and 1991 the former Soviet Union dumped the total of 4,900 containers of solid nuclear waste in Arctic seas, and 6,868 containers in the Pacific. Furthermore, the Russian navy simply sank 57 vessels filled with nuclear waste. Sixteen decommissioned reactors were also sent to the deep, including six with unloaded fuel

Near complete destruction of the Aral Sea:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/09/w...is-foundering.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all"

[...]The craving for water has turned the Aral Sea, once the world's sixth-largest inland ocean, into a shrunken, dust-shrouded necklace of lifeless brine lakes.
[..]
''It was part of the five-year plans, approved by the council of ministers and the Politburo,'' said Aleksandr Asarin, an expert at the Russian State Hydroproject Institute who angered his bosses by predicting, in 1964, that the sea was headed for catastrophe. ''Nobody on a lower level would dare to say a word contradicting those plans,'' he said, ''even if it was the fate of the Aral Sea.''

http://www.newscientist.com/article...reatens-a-regions-sea--and-its-children.html"

The Aral Sea is in danger of drying out precisely because its feeder-rivers, the Amu-Darya and Syr-Darya are being depleted to irrigate the cotton belt of the Soviet south.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/31983/Aral-Sea"

[...]By the late 1980s the lake had lost more than half the volume of its water. The salt and mineral content of the lake rose drastically because of this, making the water unfit for drinking purposes and killing off the once-abundant supplies of sturgeon, carp, barbel, roach, and other fishes in the lake. The fishing industry along the Aral Sea was thus virtually destroyed. The ports of Aral in the northeast and Mŭynoq in the south were now many miles from the lake’s shore. A partial depopulation of the areas along the lake’s former shoreline ensued. The contraction of the Aral Sea also made the local climate noticeably harsher, with more extreme winter and summer temperatures.

Google maps http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...29299,59.963379&spn=5.31194,8.909912&t=h&z=7" showing the former port cities (mentioned above) of Aralsk and Mo'ynoq now many miles from what is left of the 'sea'.

 

[mheslep]

Natural Resources Comparison, former USSR to USA:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_res-energy-oil-reserves" (recent figures)
Russia: 69 billion bbl
Kazakhstan: 26 billion bbl
Uzbekistan: 0.6 billion bbl
Azerbaijan: 0.6 billion bbl
US: 22.5 billion bbl

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_nat_gas_pro_res-energy-natural-gas-proved-reserves"
Russia: 47 tcf
US: 6 tcf

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_lig_coa_add_res-lignite-brown-coal-additional-resources&date=1990"
USSR (1990): 3.1 trillion tons
US (1990): 0.67 trillion tons

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/agr_ara_lan_hec-agriculture-arable-land-hectares"
Russia: 121 m hectares
Ukraine: 32 m hectares
Kazakhstan: 22 m hectares
US: 174 m hectares

Land Area:
Russia: 16 million km^2
Kazakhstan: 2.7 m km^2
US 9.2 million km^2

 

[mikelepore]

It's basic economics, not myth, that wealth is created each time a voluntary economic transaction takes place.

Wealth is created when human activity, both mental and physical, is combined with nature's raw materials, modifying those materials to put them into a form that has a use, such as providing sustentance, comfort, convenience.

Economic transaction is a very general term related to taking money out of one person's pocket and putting it into someone else's pocket. By itself it doesn't create anything.

In some cases economic transactions have inspired wealth-creating activity, e.g., the development of modern industry out of the previous agricultural age. In some cases economic transactions have inspired activities that are pure waste but not otherwise harmful, such as advertising, speculation, and duplication of effort. In some cases economic transactions (particularly the madness for profits) have inspired outcomes that are socially harmful, such as the Love Canal toxic waste dump, and the 1970s Ford car with the exploding gas tank. There is no automatic connection between economics and how positive the results may be.

Free market capitalism is the voluntary trade of goods and services by definition.

You add modifiers to differentiate between the capitalism that can really exist in the physical world and an imaginary form that would be truer to some principle that you call the free market.

In reality, capitalism just means the de facto situation in which a small segment of the population owns the tools but doesn't perform any labor, the majority of population performs the labor but never acquires ownership of the tools, and production gets accomplished through the unavoidable arrangement between those two demographic groups that have diametrically opposite interests, those who own but don't work, and those who work but don't own.

There is a segment in our society that wants to turn back the hand of the clock and return to 19th century laissez faire capitalism, which they call the more "authentic" or "free market" form of capitalism.

Just yesterday afternoon, someone on another website asked, "What would happen if there were free markets without state intervention?"

I replied:

Little children working in factory sweatshops and down in the mines. In the absense of government inspectors, many lethal "accidents" where employers don't have fire exits, don't have safety covers on machines, etc. Unhealthy conditions in meatpacking plants and in the kitchens of restaurants. The rivers, lakes and ground water poisoned by cancer-causing chemicals. Without codes and inspections, buildings collapsing on people. Without labelling requirements, no ability to tell the difference between medicine and snake-oil potions.

Nobody claims that an economic system is responsible for the properties of electrons. But it's certainly true that most practical inventions were invented for profit by private parties. The profit motive is a very powerful incentive, not just for creating wealth, but for inventing ways to create it more efficiently.

I say no. This cannot be, because the people who do all of the work get paid flat salaries and don't receive any of the profits that are linked directly to productivity enhancements, while the absentee owners who receive the profits don't do any of the work. It would be a spooky action-at-a-distance, it would be voodoo, for the method of dividends and capital gains to be the inspiration for the salaried workers.

The only thing that people need to have the incentive to create new inventions is a way to formally declare the policy that the personnel are made aware of. In one case, a capitalist system, the memo says that we are going to get started making a faster computer chip, because the stockholders want to sell it and become billionaires. In another case, a socialist system, the memo says we are going to get started making a faster computer chip, because this direction has been democratically adopted as a public policy. Either way, workers will choose that career if they enjoy it, and will usually work to the best of their ability.

The standard of living for people below the official poverty line in the U.S. is far greater than the overwhelming majority of people in the 1950s. One would have to be deaf, dumb, and blind not to see that.

The official poverty line is meaningless anyway. With the cost of living today, a family could have an annual income close to $100,000 and still be in poverty, depending on how many bills they have to pay.

As a final comment, I'm completely against any imposed economic system, including capitalism. That's why I use the phrase "free market capitalism" to be clear that I'm not talking about any imposed system, or anything even remotely like anything described by Marx. And I have no problem with people practicing socialism/communism if that's what they choose to do. People have done so throughout U.S. history.

There is nothing in my lifetime of observations that resembles your idea of an "imposed" system. Reality is always in a particular condition. We find it that way when we are born into the world and grow up. Either we like it or we can propose changing it. To change the system is no more of an imposition than not changing it.

The Communist Manifesto points out: "... Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed... The modern bourgeois society ... has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones."

If people are happy with that condition, fine. If they don't think that it's optimal, they can try to change it. But to feel inhibited from "imposing" any system has no meaning to me.

What I am against is using force to deprive individuals of their ownership of their own labor like imposed communism/socialism/Marxism does. An individual's labor belongs to him, to control as he chooses. It does not belong to society or government.

If that's your objective, you have the conclusion backwards. When the industries are operated with a nonprofit charter, that's when people will, for the first time, be able to receive the full equivalent of their labor. If a company will only give a worker a job on the condition that it can expropriate a profit from that worker, then the worker gets robbed every payday. Every time your employer places a paycheck into your hand, you just got mugged.