(03-09-2021, 04:49 PM)Einzige Wrote: [ -> ] (03-09-2021, 04:34 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]We're on the brink of retaking what was lost ... at least some of it. Unfortunately, we need far more than 'what was lost'. The economy has grown and the ownership class has taken so much and left so little, that a little reverse gouging will be unavoidable. Prepare to hear the cries of the whiny wealthy: "UNFAIR! COMFISCATORY! JOB-KILLING!" It's coming. When and how much are the only questions.
The secret to it is that the Democrats only intend to "confiscate" enough to Kickstart the entire process all over again.
Considering how badly the full confiscation has worked elsewhere, I'm OK with that. The vast majority only want to live comfortably, raise their children and participate in social life they deem valuable. They simply don't have any interest in being part of the collective, any more than they wanted total freedom with the responsible for everything in their lives. Neither extreme has a huge following, so some in-between option will prevail. It's the job of all of us to build safeguards that prevent the hyper-acquisitive from taking too much in the future. I doubt that will happen, so the cycle continues.
I Find it hilarious that establishment Libs are coming out in favor of runaway unrestricted corporate capitalism now that they control the executive reigns for now. Yeah the corporations who want to work you like a mule and try to cancel you if one has the "wrong" private opinions are somehow supposedly the best friends of ordinary Working and Middle class people. Laughable, even more laughable is that their belief that these corporations would support elevating aspiring elites instead of trying to stifle them in order to prevent competition. Any true pro-working class radical who wants America's potential unshackled from various forms of tyranny should spit at these globalist sellouts.
(03-10-2021, 01:32 PM)CH86 Wrote: [ -> ]I Find it hilarious that establishment Libs are coming out in favor of runaway unrestricted corporate capitalism now that they control the executive reigns for now. Yeah the corporations who want to work you like a mule and try to cancel you if one has the "wrong" private opinions are somehow supposedly the best friends of ordinary Working and Middle class people. Laughable, even more laughable is that their belief that these corporations would support elevating aspiring elites instead of trying to stifle them in order to prevent competition. Any true pro-working class radical who wants America's potential unshackled from various forms of tyranny should spit at these globalist sellouts.
I agree, but lambasting "globalism" is to step foot into conspiratorialism.
The problem is capitalism. Entirely. Completely. All forms of it. Wage labor and profit is
all of the problem. Fuck "America's potential"; what's necessary is *international working class revolution*. Nationalist populism is a backdoor to control by the national capitalists as surely as liberal progressivism is a backdoor to control by finance capital.
(03-10-2021, 01:41 PM)Einzige Wrote: [ -> ]The problem is capitalism. Entirely. Completely. All forms of it. Wage labor and profit is all of the problem. Fuck "America's potential"; what's necessary is *international working class revolution*. Nationalist populism is a backdoor to control by the national capitalists as surely as liberal progressivism is a backdoor to control by finance capital.
Please return in 100 years. You may have a shot then. Maybe.
(03-10-2021, 03:47 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-10-2021, 01:41 PM)Einzige Wrote: [ -> ]The problem is capitalism. Entirely. Completely. All forms of it. Wage labor and profit is all of the problem. Fuck "America's potential"; what's necessary is *international working class revolution*. Nationalist populism is a backdoor to control by the national capitalists as surely as liberal progressivism is a backdoor to control by finance capital.
Please return in 100 years. You may have a shot then. Maybe.
Maybe less than a century. The division of wealth is near enough the biggest problem in the culture assuming movement in global warming. But I do see non violence as more likely in the next awakening or crisis in democratic cultures. If quite a bit happens on warming in this crisis, the new prophets will need something to complain about.
It is not simply the division of wealth, but a matter of producing wealth as wealth.
(03-10-2021, 04:24 PM)Einzige Wrote: [ -> ]It is not simply the division of wealth, but a matter of producing wealth as wealth.
The simplest solution: raise corporate taxes, then require they be paid in stock. Place the stock in a Sovereign Wealth Fund managed by an independent entity (the Fed is a good example of such an entity), which would funnel profits and dividends into the a public distribution channel. Over time, the Fund will own it all, and you have a synthetic version of your Marxist dream.
(03-10-2021, 04:56 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-10-2021, 04:24 PM)Einzige Wrote: [ -> ]It is not simply the division of wealth, but a matter of producing wealth as wealth.
The simplest solution: raise corporate taxes, then require they be paid in stock. Place the stock in a Sovereign Wealth Fund managed by an independent entity (the Fed is a good example of such an entity), which would funnel profits and dividends into the a public distribution channel. Over time, the Fund will own it all, and you have a synthetic version of your Marxist dream.
Marxism is
not mere "worker ownership of the means of production", though it has been vulgarized as such. It calls for nothing less than the abolition of commodity production for exchange and the elimination of exchange value. This does not solve that issue.
(03-10-2021, 05:42 PM)Einzige Wrote: [ -> ] (03-10-2021, 04:56 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-10-2021, 04:24 PM)Einzige Wrote: [ -> ]It is not simply the division of wealth, but a matter of producing wealth as wealth.
The simplest solution: raise corporate taxes, then require they be paid in stock. Place the stock in a Sovereign Wealth Fund managed by an independent entity (the Fed is a good example of such an entity), which would funnel profits and dividends into the a public distribution channel. Over time, the Fund will own it all, and you have a synthetic version of your Marxist dream.
Marxism is not mere "worker ownership of the means of production", though it has been vulgarized as such. It calls for nothing less than the abolition of commodity production for exchange and the elimination of exchange value. This does not solve that issue.
Making the perfect the enemy of the good merely guarantees neither will happen.
(03-11-2021, 10:45 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-10-2021, 05:42 PM)Einzige Wrote: [ -> ] (03-10-2021, 04:56 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-10-2021, 04:24 PM)Einzige Wrote: [ -> ]It is not simply the division of wealth, but a matter of producing wealth as wealth.
The simplest solution: raise corporate taxes, then require they be paid in stock. Place the stock in a Sovereign Wealth Fund managed by an independent entity (the Fed is a good example of such an entity), which would funnel profits and dividends into the a public distribution channel. Over time, the Fund will own it all, and you have a synthetic version of your Marxist dream.
Marxism is not mere "worker ownership of the means of production", though it has been vulgarized as such. It calls for nothing less than the abolition of commodity production for exchange and the elimination of exchange value. This does not solve that issue.
Making the perfect the enemy of the good merely guarantees neither will happen.
What you prescribe isn't even good. It's just State capitalism. You're literally just describing something Engsls talked about.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo...p/ch03.htm
If the crises demonstrate the incapacity of the bourgeoisie for managing any longer modern productive forces, the transformation of the great establishments for production and distribution into joint-stock companies, trusts, and State property, show how unnecessary the bourgeoisie are for that purpose. All the social functions of the capitalist has no further social function than that of pocketing dividends, tearing off coupons, and gambling on the Stock Exchange, where the different capitalists despoil one another of their capital. At first, the capitalistic mode of production forces out the workers. Now, it forces out the capitalists, and reduces them, just as it reduced the workers, to the ranks of the surplus-population, although not immediately into those of the industrial reserve army.
But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.
(03-11-2021, 10:51 AM)Einzige Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021, 10:45 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-10-2021, 05:42 PM)Einzige Wrote: [ -> ] (03-10-2021, 04:56 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (03-10-2021, 04:24 PM)Einzige Wrote: [ -> ]It is not simply the division of wealth, but a matter of producing wealth as wealth.
The simplest solution: raise corporate taxes, then require they be paid in stock. Place the stock in a Sovereign Wealth Fund managed by an independent entity (the Fed is a good example of such an entity), which would funnel profits and dividends into the a public distribution channel. Over time, the Fund will own it all, and you have a synthetic version of your Marxist dream.
Marxism is not mere "worker ownership of the means of production", though it has been vulgarized as such. It calls for nothing less than the abolition of commodity production for exchange and the elimination of exchange value. This does not solve that issue.
Making the perfect the enemy of the good merely guarantees neither will happen.
What you prescribe isn't even good. It's just State capitalism. You're literally just describing something Engsls talked about.
If the crises demonstrate the incapacity of the bourgeoisie for managing any longer modern productive forces, the transformation of the great establishments for production and distribution into joint-stock companies, trusts, and State property, show how unnecessary the bourgeoisie are for that purpose. All the social functions of the capitalist has no further social function than that of pocketing dividends, tearing off coupons, and gambling on the Stock Exchange, where the different capitalists despoil one another of their capital. At first, the capitalistic mode of production forces out the workers. Now, it forces out the capitalists, and reduces them, just as it reduced the workers, to the ranks of the surplus-population, although not immediately into those of the industrial reserve army.
But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution.
You made my point. Better is still better. You r option has no chance in hell, though it may be a transition from my plan (though I personally doubt it).
I am sure your plan will be tried. But it's just going to consolidate productive power in the hands of the capitalist State. This consolidation might be useful in that it provides a single target for violent seizure by the working class, but this is all.
Marxism can work only if the State is responsible to the people. Communist Parties in power have dreadful records on human rights and at best middling on economic equity. Regimes under Communist Parties were even poor at conserving resources and protecting the environment. Their waste of energy was alleged prosperity... but it was simply waste.
(03-11-2021, 12:30 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Marxism can work only if the State is responsible to the people. Communist Parties in power have dreadful records on human rights and at best middling on economic equity. Regimes under Communist Parties were even poor at conserving resources and protecting the environment. Their waste of energy was alleged prosperity... but it was simply waste.
There is no State under Communism.
Yeah, yeah, yeah -- under Marxist claptrap the State fades away as socialism evolves into communism.
Maybe I am wrong to see Marx' idea of communism as the end of scarcity and plenty of ease in which people largely do things (like writing, art, performance) for their own sake. Many people who hate their jobs identify themselves with their gardens of beautiful flowers and other plants. This said, capitalism also has the potential to create a world without scarcity. Status symbols will be meaningless, and command-and-control will be pointless in the workplace.
Socialism is the same thing as Communism. Marx doesn't distinguish.
"The partisan divide on issues" today is not liberal vs. Marxist. Ignore Einzige.
(03-11-2021, 04:28 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]"The partisan divide on issues" today is not liberal vs. Marxist. Ignore Einzige.
Marxism is growing quite rapidly - and I mean real Marxism, not your middle class pseudoradical liberal idpol. Ignor it at your peril.
(03-11-2021, 04:28 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]"The partisan divide on issues" today is not liberal vs. Marxist. Ignore Einzige.
Are you sure about that? How sure are you about that today? You better pay more attention to Enzige being half the country is now on the verge of beginning to split the country. As I've mentioned before, I don't care who/what gets you at this point.
(03-12-2021, 12:12 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2021, 04:28 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]"The partisan divide on issues" today is not liberal vs. Marxist. Ignore Einzige.
Are you sure about that? How sure are you about that today? You better pay more attention to Enzige being half the country is now on the verge of beginning to split the country. As I've mentioned before, I don't care who/what gets you at this point.
What
you have to work on is understanding that Marxisn =/= left-liberalism even at its most "radical".