Well, I'm back

[Kinser79]

(01-10-2018, 01:24 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-09-2018, 09:01 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(01-09-2018, 11:16 AM)David Horn Wrote: <snip boring stuff about Social Democracies>

 
Stefan Molyneux addressed this issue far better than I ever could.

You did actually view the video, I assume. I can't list the number of misquoted statistics he used, because it was virtually the entire video. He started by correlating high-freedom states with high income and low poverty. True, but those included the Scandinavian nations he was slamming. It goes downhill from there.

So SNIP back at ya!

Of course I viewed it. I also reviewed the statistics too. Stefan has nothing to fear from statistics since he always attempts to speak the truth. But it is good to see that you're learning posting tactics from Eric the Ignoramus. Maybe someday you'll make it to my concptual ignore list--assuming this forum makes it that much longer.

I'm starting to feel that like All My Children it has had its decades long run and is more or less over. Or perhaps it just seems that way since most of the threads I'm in seem like the same tired arguments from the same tired people on the same tired topics.

(01-10-2018, 02:33 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-09-2018, 09:31 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(01-09-2018, 11:25 AM)David Horn Wrote: Remember, it was you who was the Marxist.  In fact, it was only you, if I remember the positions of the many posters to this board and its antecedent.

And your point is what exactly, Mr. Horn?  You do realize that intelligent people typically change their positions when their current ones are no longer suitable, right?  I mean what would you call someone who does the same thing over and over and expects different results?  I can only think of two things to call such a person and neither are flattering.

Some of us recognize bunk right out of the chute.  I've favored social-democracy since I was in high school ... you know, those public schools you hate so much.

Perhaps you should talk to someone intimately involved with the public school system. If you think I hate them you should talk to my husband who is a guard...er...I mean teacher at a child prison...er...I mean public school. Surely you remember the time I told posted about how I was bored by his principle at a social event going on about how great it was that the state provided them with new razor wire fences.

Quote:

Kinser Wrote:

David Wrote:Marxism was dead when the modern economy emerged in the 1920s.

 
History would disagree with you.  Marxism reached its peak sometime in the 1940s.  Marxism-Leninism in particular is an outgrowth of the matieral conditions of rapidly industrializing states--a la the USSR, and PRC.

The death began in the '20s.  It took decades for it to kill the host country.  Credit to Deng Xiaoping for seeing the death rattles before they became toxic, so China survived but is MINO.

By and large China is pretty much capitalist these days--and I mean capitalist to the point of Pre-New Deal America. Having read Deng, I don't think that was due to any dazzling insight of his and more of he lacked Mao's personality (and cult of personality) and ruthlessness so in order to maintain power he had to dramatically improve living standards to keep the people out of the streets and he wasn't too interested in whether cats were white or black provided they caught him mice.

It seems to me that enforcing a Marxist Socialist paradigm is incredibly dependent on who the leader is. The USSR started declining after Stalin died (or was murdered, there is some debate around his death). China which was already somewhat revisionist to start with accelerated with revisionism and even complete replacement with capitalism after Mao died. Albania had a counter revolution as soon as Hoxha was dead.

I'm unsure that the DPRK ever reached socialist construction. I know that Vietnam, Laos and Cuba never even attempted to construct socialism.

Quote:

Kinser Wrote:

David Wrote:It's even less relevant today.

I agree, but only because except in especially backward sates most countries have at least some light industry or the income to buy goods cheaply from the World's Sweatshops (China and India respectively).  By and large the growing industries are involved with information technology and the outgrowths of those technologies.  In short Marxism has become less relevant because the material conditions changed.  Interestingly this is the same reason why I walked away from Marxism after having been a Marxist-Leninist for a quarter century.

Marxism assumes large labor inputs to generate specific material outputs.  Modern industrial techniques started to kill that idea in the 1920s, at least it did in countries that had that technology and employed it.

LOL. I don't know if this is a result of profound ignorance of Marx's economic works or a lack of understanding what the words "material conditions" means.

The assumption of large labor inputs to generate any output necessitates that there is no technological progress in any given society. Provided that a capitalist state exists somewhere, that is an impossibility because for all its rhetoric Marxist economies simply cannot revolutionize production at nearly the speed capitalism can and does.

Quote:

Kinser Wrote:

David Wrote:A bigger question: what replaces capitalism when AI replaces human work?  I know I won't live to see it, but it's coming.  Under that model, libertarianism will devolve to the rule of the mob or absolute autocracy.  I'll bet on the latter.

What odds are you giving because I'm willing to take that bet.  I by no means believe that industrial capitalism is a permanent fixture in human society but the idea that automation and AI will completely replace human labor entirely is absurd.  Automation has been happening since the start of the industrial revolution and so far capitalism not only out competed Marxist Socialism, but as the video in my previous post demonstrates it even out competes so-called democratic socialism.

Give it 50 years, and the work will be complete.  Although you can't remember life 50 years ago, I can.  Everything was still human input.  Computers were room-sized boxes that did computations at a snail's pace by today's standards, and were uncommon to boot.  The first automation (Computer Numerical Control) didn't even start for another 10 years, and it was primitive.  With today's pace of change, 50 years may be a pessimistic guess.

Completely irrelevant. 150 years ago everyone needed buggy whips for their horse. The car automated transportation. Did this put buggy whip manufacturers out of business? Sure. Did it destroy the basis of economics? No. Those persons formerly employeed making buggy whips found jobs elsewhere. Just like large numbers of workers replaced by machines in farming and manufacturing are finding jobs elsewhere.

I'm willing to venture that automation to the point that human production is completely obsolete is impossible. That is a bet I'm willing to make on a time scale of 50 years, 100 years or even 1000 years.

Though I noticed that you picked 50 years. Did you do that because you'd almost certainly be dead whereas I'd have a decent chance of being a live? I mean I'd be in my late 80s and probably would have difficulty remembering my own name, but I'd probably still be consuming food, water and oxygen.

Quote:

Kinser Wrote:Furthermore more people in the 20th century have died as a result of governmental action than from anything else.  So given the choice between a huge all-powerful state and society being run by a biker gang, I'll take the biker gang.  At least the drugs will be good.

OK, but so what?  Are you suggesting that anarcho-whatever will prevail and government will disappear?  Not a chance.  When it shrinks, it just becomes an appendage of private interests ... who can grow it if they need it.  

Anarcho-capitalism would require the displacement of the state as a general principle of the organization of society. Like Communism, and well anarcho-anything-else it is utopian. One of the reasons why I consider myself more of a classical liberal than a strict libertarian.

That being said, the state can only become the appendage of private interests if the state is viewed as a means to an end. Private interests are only concerned with the state if it is a means to an end. For political types the state is an end in itself. It is a completely different viewpoint.

Quote:

Kinser Wrote:So how many bitcoin are we wagering...I take gold, silver and platinum also.  You can keep your paper though.  I only take bets with items of intrinsic value.

I don't place bets I won't live long enough to collect, but I think my case is strong.

History indicates otherwise. And there is no reason to believe that barring governmental interference that the market forces will substantially change. People need food, water, shelter and in most climates clothing. The persons who produce those goods are not going to do so for free. And even those who use machines to produce those goods are not going to sell them for free. So we are always going to have a situation where Person X must do something to get money to pay Person Y for the goods he needs and wants.

Unless of course you subscribe to the absurd notion that a universal basic income is practical, which mathematically it is not. I won't even get into the moral hazards of that idea. The mathematics demonstrate its impossibility adequately enough.

Quote:

Kinser Wrote:

David Wrote:As a social system, neither is acceptable, so some advanced planning is in order.

The USSR had advanced planning.  People stood in line for hours for potatoes.  While I think a lack of computing power did play a part (as I've referenced Toward a New Socialism by Paul Cockshot numerous times on the old forum and even a few times here) that is not the whole story.  Command economies have great difficulties with calculating price and correctly allocating resources and labor.  Simply put cats cannot swim the Atlantic Ocean.

Wrong kind of planning.  The planning that's needed is contingent not directive.  Since no one can predict the future with true accuracy, it's more than just wise to have a few optional chess moves figured-out.  Having options beats, "Oh shit, what now?"

In general, any type of centralized economic planning results in disaster. I think it far more efficient to allow the interested parties to attempt on their own to interpret price and profit on their own and adjust their plans accordingly. As those countries which practice central planning in full or in part in the past 150 years have demonstrated the greater the freedom of capital to chase profit the more efficient the national economy.

Other wise you end up with directives from economic production bureaus in Moscow demanding X Megagrams of screws, and that quota being fulfilled by screws weighing 100g each being abundant but a spare screw for Comrade X's glasses being completely absent in the country.

But you don't have to take my word for it...you could just read Hayek or Von Mises for yourself.