CDZ What are the Differences Between Democratic Socialism and Marxism?

[JimBowie1958]

stat·ism
ˈstātˌizəm/
noun

1. a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.
   "the rise of authoritarian statism"

You just nailed every government on the planet for the past two centuries. Congratulations and I still dont see a discerning principle here at all.

This applies to many 'ism's including the corrupt, centrally-controlled, corny capitalism we "enjoy" today.

Government has a definite place in society...as long as those who serve in it realize that their power to govern comes from the consent of the people, that the liberty of the people comes before government's insatiable need for order and control, and they govern within the constraints of their founding documents (ie our Constitution). Government is not the country, government is but a necessary tool of the country.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Sounds good, but the devil is always in the details.

 

[Militants]

Socialdemocrat are Communism in Democracy I know.

Only Socialism are Communism.

Portugal, Cuba, China, Russia maybe to Italy and Spain have Socialism portion.

N.Korea are real Communism diktatur.

Serbia have one Communism portion.

Nationalsocialism are in Germany for 80 year back step.

Nationalsocialism are one Marxist spicie. 1 of 3 of Marxists. Rest I've tell you.

 

[320 Years of History]

My short answer to the title question is that the difference is the extent to which market forces are permitted to drive the use of resources when faced with scarcity and the drivers of utility (in the economic sense of the term). Democratic socialism (DS) allows market forces -- supply and demand -- to drive how many resources are used, whereas Marxism tasks the community's members with choosing how to allocate resources and the fruits of their use. Can the members of either society be perfectly satisfied? Yes, they can. Members in DS find satisfaction in obtaining access to the upper limits of what the society produces; members in Marxism find satisfaction in knowing they are neither better nor worse off than their peers and not being concerned with what might be available at the limits of what's possible.

The thing to keep in mind is that on the economic spectrum at one end sits capitalism and at the other sit command economies. In between the two sits socialism, be it democratic or something else in the political environment in which it sits. The thing that is critical is that no matter how little or much supply and demand are allowed to drive how scarcity and choice are managed, the system is still a capitalist one. It is only when supply and demand are entirely not allowed to be the levers by which scarcity and choice are managed does one get a command economy.

While one can overlay capitalism onto any political system, one cannot overlay a command economic system onto any political system. However, if whatever system one wants mandates that "all pigs be equal," one cannot have capitalism because social and economic homogeneity just aren't an outcome with capitalism which inherently provides greater rewards, more resources, to people and groups who are better at something than are others.

Owen's followers again stressed both participatory democracy and economic socialisation, in the form of consumer co-operatives, credit unions and mutual aid societies.

He hardly needed to include that...they are going to exist as long as individuals fail to master key aspects of human nature. LOL Perhaps Owen presented his ideas before it was understood that humans are by nature a social and opportunistic omnivore species. LOL

1. Democracy and the soverienty of the People of a Nation, which is embodied in our declaration of Independence. This includes the principles of Free speech and thought, respect for dissent and the abolition of political crimes.

Is there a reason that is germane to your post's theme and that explains why you didn't underline "of a Nation?" If so, please share?

I ask because I see the "of a Nation" aspect as central to why the discussion of communism, socialism, etc. even exists. Absent political boundaries, that is a multiplicity of sovereign nations that want to "look out" for their own people to the exclusion of others, there is little need to have even conceived various economic and political systems of large (nation size large) group management. After all, with a sufficiently small scope, communism works just fine; it is, after all, how most family units operate. The question then is what be the scope limit of communism's efficacy, not whether it has any at all.

Robert Owen wanted to mimic [faith-based communal economies'] success with secular communes and failed each time, but that didn't stop him from promoting secular communes anyway, lol.

Yes, well, that's the thing. As among family members, within an abbey, cloister, etc., there are a few elements of human nature that are subjugated willingly, and mostly successfully, by all, or nearly all, of the members of the communal organization: avarice, jealousy, sloth, and wrath. Moving outside the family unit or some other easily understood and recognized basis by which commonality is established (which is part of what nationhood does), it becomes harder and harder for people to see the value of behaving in toward others just as they would toward their family members, or toward the members of a different identity group.

That's not to say folks cannot, but rather that they struggle considerably more to see the value of doing so. The value is every bit as much present and eminently more valuable when applied beyond the most obvious extents of scope, but like Lady Truth, it is something one must actively seek for being demure, it won't drag you to it's cave. <winks>

[Marx tried to weave a sort of unitary theory of politics, social theory, philosophy and economics into Marxism. He promoted a new set of theories that included Historical Materialism, capital formation economic theories, and more

Well, yes, but then democracy+capitalism is no different and equally comprehensive in its scope. It's just different in terms of what inspires production and demand and in what and where are found the sources of corruption. In communism and socialism, it's all over the place in comparatively small amounts, but it's a huge drag overall because it's so pervasive, not because any one or few individuals are corrupt. In capitalism, it's mostly at the top and only to a limited extent because the folks at the top don't need to be that corrupt and aren't served by being noticed for being corrupt. In either system, however, it has the same three drivers: avarice, pride/hubris and envy.

class consciousness: Class consciousness refers to the awareness, both of itself and of the social world around it, that a social class possesses, and its capacity to act in its own rational interests based on this awareness. Thus class consciousness must be attained before the class may mount a successful revolution.

Yes, Marx, as an atheist and promoter of the "opiate of the masses" idea, needed to present what is called in theist circles greed, pride and jealousy. Those three are basically what Marx's "class consciousness" can be summarized as. Marx wanted to use them to catalyze the same type of class revolution that Trump and Mr. Sanders advocate for now. It's substantively the same message: the "haves" have taken excessive advantage of their status as "haves" so much so that only "scraps" are left for the "have nots." What differs is that in a democratic republic, regardless of the extent to which socialist/centrally controlled economics play a role, the leaders of the revolution say "pick me and I'll fix" things, whereas in Marx's revolution, the masses are supposed to pick nobody and enact the revolution and what comes after it by and for themselves, having no leader at the top.

The problem with that, of course, is that as a social species, humans function best with a leader and with a hierarchy of some sort. That is part of why, IMO, communism and thus Marx's end-state ideal has never been realized. Another part of why is that the practical impediments of trying to make a truly communal system to work on a nation state scale (both geographically and in with large populations) just is too unwieldy. I think communism can work just fine in a nation the size of Monaco or Switzerland even. Much larger than that and there are too many differences driven by geography alone for large states to be efficient in their use and allocation of resources.

exploitation: Marx refers to the exploitation of an entire segment or class of society by another. He sees it as being an inherent feature and key element of capitalism and free markets.

Yes, well, it may not be a feature of communism to, but who knows? We've yet to see communism in play on a national scale. As far as the intermediate step which Marx posits may be necessary on the path to attaining communism -- socialism -- that very same exploitation most certainly exists.

Americans being a very religious and/or spiritual people alienates them from Marxism and any theory of Socialism that drinks deeply from a Marxist world view.

I don't think it's religion that does that. I think it's capitalism. Theist and atheist Americans are equally likely to reject Marxism/Socialism.

Economic Marxism, if one can entirely isolate it from the rest of the system

One cannot. Given that the collective must make productive and consumptive choices as one, the economics and politics are inextricably linked. Better to ignore either the economics of one's choices or the politics. Of the two, ignoring the economics is far easier. (Just ask all the folks who have no economics training and yet have something to say about economics. LOL)

capitalism, that is the increase in efficiency of production through better processes, faster machinery, substitution of cheaper and better materials, etc, all lead to a reduction of pay for the manual labor as the requirements for said worker get simpler over time and laborers are easier to find and train. Thus the over-supply of potential labor is the critical factor in driving the price of labor down and leaving laborers in persistent poverty.

That isn't what capitalism is. Capitalism is an economic system whereby supply and demand determine the uses and allocation of resources in the presence of scarcity.

Your description of how labor rates fluctuate in capitalism are correct. It is not so that laborers must, under capitalism, exist in perpetual poverty, with the exception of in full on laissez faire capitalism. And that's the thing...An overarching entity, typically the government but it doesn't have to be that, can, in a limited capitalist economy, endeavor to retrain and retask laborers as the need for one form of labor diminishes and another increases. However, if no such authority bothers to do so, only the laborers who've (1) paid attention and noticed that the demand for one type of labor is shifting downward and another/others upward, and (2) amassed enough wealth to retrain themselves (or for a very small few, innovate) will be able to redirect their labors to perform the new types of labor demanded as those shifts occur. There are some other traits as well that are needed: (1) the will to change when change comes, (2) at least average intellect, and (3) access to excellent information.

What it appears to me that Marx over looked was that the technological advances also introduce new technologies. Those new technologies produced new industries that began the capitalization process all over, with costly labor at the top of the gradual slide down, but costly nonetheless. So the son of a fifth generation water mill worker might become the first generation of an automated lumber mill working family. This still required a move on the part of the laborers family and weakened the idea of extended family and broader community as time went on, but it kept the professional skilled working class in tall grass for some time.

Marx was a better economist than that. He absolutely did not overlook the role of technological advances in economic systems, most especially seeing as he was also a scientist.

Red:
In what context do you mean that phrase?

India's professional classes can swarm to our shores with resume's prefit to published job positions quicker than unions can come to realize that management has decided to have their workers train their new Indian replacements.

Therein are some of the shortfalls laborers (at the lower levels of the wage scale) face today in the U.S.labor market, and all of them have to do with will.

• Workers, unionized or not, don't want to do something materially different from what they've been doing. In other words, workers want the status to stay quo. If workers, say, have always assembled widgets, they don't want to learn how to assemble software or words. They want to assemble widgets, but assembling a new kind of widget is okay with them.
• Unions, in response to what workers, their members, want are generally about maintaining the status quo rather than encouraging change and growth among their memberships.
  
• The polity doesn't want the government to pay for the retraining, arguing that it's too expensive and open to abuse.
• Employers don't want to pay for the retraining either because it's an investment for which their returns aren't guaranteed...workers may learn from employer A and then leave after a couple years to work for employer B who wants experienced people, whereupon employer A must train someone else. Given the costs of training, employer A is better off hiring experienced, or at least already trained workers rather than train them.
• Laborers often lack the funds to retrain themselves even if they had the will to do so.
• Political leaders largely have no interest in having an immensely well informed and dynamic electorate because one cannot "bamboozle 'em with BS" when they are very well informed (truly well informed, not well informed on what their favorite partisan thinks). Why would they? Sure, once in a while a leader comes along who genuinely -- as opposed to knowing how to appear genuine, which, of course, is why I don't, on the face of it, care for actors or pseudo-actors running for political office -- cares more about "the people," the "have nots" than s/he does about preserving the status quo.

Those forces collaborate to leave many laborers in the positions in which they find themselves now.

final end stage degeneration of global capitalism

??? What? I don't know what point you're making here, partly because I don't know that capitalism has an "end stage."

Workers are going to do that under any system when they feel they are being left behind. It's only a question of how long it takes for them to feel left behind and how many get left behind.

They will look for anyone who will promise a fix, whether it is B. H. Obama or Donald Trump and they will be increasingly willing to disregard any issue that is not a pocket book matter as irrelevant.

That's very true, but the problem is that at the risk of sounding pejorative, which isn't how I mean it, the very strata of society that is griping is "too ignorant to know they are ignorant" of the "stuff" they need to know in order to choose what's actually best for them.

Off Topic, sort of:
Because I'd come across it some time back, and seeing as it just crossed my mind, I figure now's a good time to share this because it makes explode in a guffaw every time I watch it.

So what are the forms of Democratic Socialism that the majority of America can accept? How can it get paid for? Where does the money come from in a shrinking economy? Are we all doomed to flip burgers at McDonalds?

Red:
As much as it takes to put more money into their pockets than they currently find there. I have to say that among the folks who aren't in the top 10% of U.S. earners, I don't have the first idea why they oppose the very policies that will make it easier for them to get closer to being or become part of that segment of society, that is other than what I've posited above.

Blue:
I don't know, but seeing as the U.S. economy isn't shrinking, that's not a question for which we need an answer.

​

Green:
Most definitely not. Folks who "go with the flow" of the economy will not at all find themselves flipping burgers anywhere.

 

[JimBowie1958]

My short answer to the title question is that the difference is the extent to which market forces are permitted to drive the use of resources when faced with scarcity and the drivers of utility (in the economic sense of the term). Democratic socialism (DS) allows market forces -- supply and demand -- to drive how many resources are used, whereas Marxism tasks the community's members with choosing how to allocate resources and the fruits of their use. Can the members of either society be perfectly satisfied? Yes, they can. Members in DS find satisfaction in obtaining access to the upper limits of what the society produces; members in Marxism find satisfaction in knowing they are neither better nor worse off than their peers and not being concerned with what might be available at the limits of what's possible.

The thing to keep in mind is that on the economic spectrum at one end sits capitalism and at the other sit command economies. In between the two sits socialism, be it democratic or something else in the political environment in which it sits. The thing that is critical is that no matter how little or much supply and demand are allowed to drive how scarcity and choice are managed, the system is still a capitalist one. It is only when supply and demand are entirely not allowed to be the levers by which scarcity and choice are managed does one get a command economy.

While one can overlay capitalism onto any political system, one cannot overlay a command economic system onto any political system. However, if whatever system one wants mandates that "all pigs be equal," one cannot have capitalism because social and economic homogeneity just aren't an outcome with capitalism which inherently provides greater rewards, more resources, to people and groups who are better at something than are others.

First, thank you for your reasonable and calm response. It is rather long, so I wont be able to address each and every point in it, and most of it I agree with anyway, so I will only address your questions and those specific points where I disagree with you.

My point about Marx is not that he completely ignored technology, not at all. It is technology he saw as driving the capitalization of industry as well as investment, procedural efficiency improvements and so forth. What Marx over looked it seems to me, is that each new technology began a new industry, a new market that would restart the process of capitalization of that industry all over again. This gave capitalism a breathing space that it needed to last another 200 years that it seems to me Marx did not anticipate.

You stated, "Members in DS find satisfaction in obtaining access to the upper limits of what the society produces; members in Marxism find satisfaction in knowing they are neither better nor worse off than their peers and not being concerned with what might be available at the limits of what's possible." I dont think that people who are entirely satisfied with their lot in life want to migrate in such numbers that the state has to build walls to prevent their nation from becoming largely depopulated. Even in a dictatorship, people can vote with their feet and the vote seems to be that Marxist Leninism is not all that satisfying while democratic capitalism is; at least for a time.

You ask why in my point 1 I did not underline the nation as well as the people, and that is because there are elements within every nation that is extremely distinct from the common people in every way, but most importantly they do not see themselves as part of the people of the nation. They see themselves as superior to the people and they are not at all concerned with defending the rights and welfare of the general people. So they are a subpopulation of the nation that is distinct and quite often hostile to the common population in almost every respect. I draw the distinction because this subgroup always controls the levers of power and are the greatest source of inhumanity and oppression to the common man in every nation of every era. Nothing has changed about that, merely the composition, and not all that much of it.

In regard to Robert Owen, the lack of a moral basis as a requirement to any community was an oversight on his part he was blind to. I am often amazed by ideological fervor, being a former ideologist myself. Ideologies can only depict one perspective of the human existence, and I think this is because the way linear logic works, and most ideologies are built on linear reason, it has to begin with a set of assumptions that cannot be debated. Those root assumptions or Axioms are what limit the scope of ideology from becoming truly accurate in the sense of reflecting Reality in its totality. Every ideology has some flaws of some sort. This is why I love most aspects of democracy, in that democracy allows people of many different perspectives and political views to add to the governing system their own opinion and take on life. I think this is more accurate regarding Reality than the tightest ideological reason and rhetorical brilliance. But of course there are flaws to democracy and it needs to be held in check in many regards, but it is the best approach to finding Truth and allowing people the freedom to pursue their own satisfaction in life. The market place of Ideas is far more efficient at finding Truth and allowing Freedom than is the proffessoriate.

You stated, "What differs is that in a democratic republic, regardless of the extent to which socialist/centrally controlled economics play a role, the leaders of the revolution say "pick me and I'll fix" things, whereas in Marx's revolution, the masses are supposed to pick nobody and enact the revolution and what comes after it by and for themselves, having no leader at the top." - Which is why it cannot work that way; people MUST be led. They are not capable of finding the water and fertile hunting grounds on their own efficiently enough to survive. This is how we have evolved as a tribal society for millions of years, to be led by the exceptional ones. Without this leadership, we all starve, but with this leadership we risk being turned into serfs working for the Baron and our life and rights reduced to the absolute minimum over time. A paradox of human society; we need the elites, but we cannot trust them.

You state, "Yes, well, it may not be a feature of communism to, but who knows? We've yet to see communism in play on a national scale." And I would add to that that we never will. Pure communism is an ideal that can never be attained, like the limit of a mathematical function. The coming technological singularity might bring something very similar about, but by technology advancing so far that it makes capitalism itself obsolete.

Without a shortage of supply for the necessities of life, capitalism cannot exist except on the smallest scale of barter and an exchange in favors and labor. When technology allows for us all to have everything we need for very little currency, capitalism will dry up and fall off the back of humanity like a snakes old dead skin.

You said, "Given that the collective must make productive and consumptive choices as one, the economics and politics are inextricably linked." Why must 'the collective' make their choices 'as one'? That seems counter productive to the goal of each person finding their own satisfaction for their own lives.

You replied to my statement regarding the definition of the process of capitalism, 'That isn't what capitalism is. Capitalism is an economic system whereby supply and demand determine the uses and allocation of resources in the presence of scarcity.' And while capitalism is that, of course, what I was pointing out was more in reference to the industry specific process of capitalization, which is the lone strength of capitalism as compared to other economic theoretical systems. Capitalism is essentially a hands off view of the capitalization of individual industries as they make themselves more efficient, and thus reduce the cost of labor and lower the quality of life of the laborer.

"I don't know what point you're making here, partly because I don't know that capitalism has an "end stage."" Yes, it does, when industries are so efficient and prices so cheap for every consumable good, then capitalism melts down into a local barter system for nonessentials. People only have to work in order to acquire the luxury goods they want, but the jobs will be too scarce to do much of that. So people will gradually shift to making luxury items with hand crafted industries such as T-Shirts, jewelry and other hand craftable items that will be prized as better than the mass manufactured bilge. An increasing number of us will have to learn to live with what we can produce using the new tools we will have to do such things, and we will gravitate toward a subsistence way of living that will allow us to live in comfort, but will not require us to have full time jobs and careers. That will be the province of the elites.

You say that the economy is not shrinking and cite GDP growth, but that is problematic in many respects. First, I am not speaking of the purely financial shrinkage of the economy, which is hugely moved upwards by government deficit spending itself. I am speaking of the ability of the average citizen to find a job. Compared to 1976 when I graduated high school, the economy as a job opportunity provider has definitely shrunken; lol, there isnt even a need to fetch the numbers except to obscure obvious facts. I was able to find work from the time I was 14 years old and bused tables at a local restaurant and worked as a janitor after school at my own high school. When I got out of the Army in September of 1983 I was able to walk up to a construction site and get a job that same day and start that same day. Most cannot do that any more, unless you are a computer engineering genius of foreign birth.
Secondly, none of our government provided data is worth a cold bucket of spit any more as the numbers are more manipulated than an old water hose. The pay and opportunity for nongovernment jobs, excluding contracting with the government also, is way way down. And the government provided charts are simply sophisticated lies that are designed to assure people that they are in an exceptionally bad place but most people are thriving in our Brave New World of Free-For-All Trade and black market labor. And the governments problem is that no one believes their bullshit statistics any more anyway. After you adjust for inflation and factor out higher government spending, after tax incomes are down on average for American citizens. And no it is not Obamas fault. This is built into the current system in order to bring down US labor costs to Third World levels and all the Establishment is involved in this Biggest Robbery in History.

Capitalism is going to die off, largely, and be reduced to a mere trickle of human endeavor, but getting there without massive bloodletting is the problem because people today think of security in the form of job availability.

I like you sig, BTW.

Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
― William F. Buckley Jr.

Most people do not seek Truth. As the movie 'The Big Short' said, "Truth is like poetry and most people fucking hate poetry."

But the poets rule as their art requires an insight that allows them to understand and manipulate the rest of us. And they as the Writing Class do.

 

[320 Years of History]

My short answer to the title question is that the difference is the extent to which market forces are permitted to drive the use of resources when faced with scarcity and the drivers of utility (in the economic sense of the term). Democratic socialism (DS) allows market forces -- supply and demand -- to drive how many resources are used, whereas Marxism tasks the community's members with choosing how to allocate resources and the fruits of their use. Can the members of either society be perfectly satisfied? Yes, they can. Members in DS find satisfaction in obtaining access to the upper limits of what the society produces; members in Marxism find satisfaction in knowing they are neither better nor worse off than their peers and not being concerned with what might be available at the limits of what's possible.

The thing to keep in mind is that on the economic spectrum at one end sits capitalism and at the other sit command economies. In between the two sits socialism, be it democratic or something else in the political environment in which it sits. The thing that is critical is that no matter how little or much supply and demand are allowed to drive how scarcity and choice are managed, the system is still a capitalist one. It is only when supply and demand are entirely not allowed to be the levers by which scarcity and choice are managed does one get a command economy.

While one can overlay capitalism onto any political system, one cannot overlay a command economic system onto any political system. However, if whatever system one wants mandates that "all pigs be equal," one cannot have capitalism because social and economic homogeneity just aren't an outcome with capitalism which inherently provides greater rewards, more resources, to people and groups who are better at something than are others.

First, thank you for your reasonable and calm response. It is rather long, so I wont be able to address each and every point in it, and most of it I agree with anyway, so I will only address your questions and those specific points where I disagree with you.

My point about Marx is not that he completely ignored technology, not at all. It is technology he saw as driving the capitalization of industry as well as investment, procedural efficiency improvements and so forth. What Marx over looked it seems to me, is that each new technology began a new industry, a new market that would restart the process of capitalization of that industry all over again. This gave capitalism a breathing space that it needed to last another 200 years that it seems to me Marx did not anticipate.

You stated, "Members in DS find satisfaction in obtaining access to the upper limits of what the society produces; members in Marxism find satisfaction in knowing they are neither better nor worse off than their peers and not being concerned with what might be available at the limits of what's possible." I dont think that people who are entirely satisfied with their lot in life want to migrate in such numbers that the state has to build walls to prevent their nation from becoming largely depopulated. Even in a dictatorship, people can vote with their feet and the vote seems to be that Marxist Leninism is not all that satisfying while democratic capitalism is; at least for a time.

You ask why in my point 1 I did not underline the nation as well as the people, and that is because there are elements within every nation that is extremely distinct from the common people in every way, but most importantly they do not see themselves as part of the people of the nation. They see themselves as superior to the people and they are not at all concerned with defending the rights and welfare of the general people. So they are a subpopulation of the nation that is distinct and quite often hostile to the common population in almost every respect. I draw the distinction because this subgroup always controls the levers of power and are the greatest source of inhumanity and oppression to the common man in every nation of every era. Nothing has changed about that, merely the composition, and not all that much of it.

In regard to Robert Owen, the lack of a moral basis as a requirement to any community was an oversight on his part he was blind to. I am often amazed by ideological fervor, being a former ideologist myself. Ideologies can only depict one perspective of the human existence, and I think this is because the way linear logic works, and most ideologies are built on linear reason, it has to begin with a set of assumptions that cannot be debated. Those root assumptions or Axioms are what limit the scope of ideology from becoming truly accurate in the sense of reflecting Reality in its totality. Every ideology has some flaws of some sort. This is why I love most aspects of democracy, in that democracy allows people of many different perspectives and political views to add to the governing system their own opinion and take on life. I think this is more accurate regarding Reality than the tightest ideological reason and rhetorical brilliance. But of course there are flaws to democracy and it needs to be held in check in many regards, but it is the best approach to finding Truth and allowing people the freedom to pursue their own satisfaction in life. The market place of Ideas is far more efficient at finding Truth and allowing Freedom than is the proffessoriate.

You stated, "What differs is that in a democratic republic, regardless of the extent to which socialist/centrally controlled economics play a role, the leaders of the revolution say "pick me and I'll fix" things, whereas in Marx's revolution, the masses are supposed to pick nobody and enact the revolution and what comes after it by and for themselves, having no leader at the top." - Which is why it cannot work that way; people MUST be led. They are not capable of finding the water and fertile hunting grounds on their own efficiently enough to survive. This is how we have evolved as a tribal society for millions of years, to be led by the exceptional ones. Without this leadership, we all starve, but with this leadership we risk being turned into serfs working for the Baron and our life and rights reduced to the absolute minimum over time. A paradox of human society; we need the elites, but we cannot trust them.

You state, "Yes, well, it may not be a feature of communism to, but who knows? We've yet to see communism in play on a national scale." And I would add to that that we never will. Pure communism is an ideal that can never be attained, like the limit of a mathematical function. The coming technological singularity might bring something very similar about, but by technology advancing so far that it makes capitalism itself obsolete.

Without a shortage of supply for the necessities of life, capitalism cannot exist except on the smallest scale of barter and an exchange in favors and labor. When technology allows for us all to have everything we need for very little currency, capitalism will dry up and fall off the back of humanity like a snakes old dead skin.

You said, "Given that the collective must make productive and consumptive choices as one, the economics and politics are inextricably linked." Why must 'the collective' make their choices 'as one'? That seems counter productive to the goal of each person finding their own satisfaction for their own lives.

You replied to my statement regarding the definition of the process of capitalism, 'That isn't what capitalism is. Capitalism is an economic system whereby supply and demand determine the uses and allocation of resources in the presence of scarcity.' And while capitalism is that, of course, what I was pointing out was more in reference to the industry specific process of capitalization, which is the lone strength of capitalism as compared to other economic theoretical systems. Capitalism is essentially a hands off view of the capitalization of individual industries as they make themselves more efficient, and thus reduce the cost of labor and lower the quality of life of the laborer.

"I don't know what point you're making here, partly because I don't know that capitalism has an "end stage."" Yes, it does, when industries are so efficient and prices so cheap for every consumable good, then capitalism melts down into a local barter system for nonessentials. People only have to work in order to acquire the luxury goods they want, but the jobs will be too scarce to do much of that. So people will gradually shift to making luxury items with hand crafted industries such as T-Shirts, jewelry and other hand craftable items that will be prized as better than the mass manufactured bilge. An increasing number of us will have to learn to live with what we can produce using the new tools we will have to do such things, and we will gravitate toward a subsistence way of living that will allow us to live in comfort, but will not require us to have full time jobs and careers. That will be the province of the elites.

You say that the economy is not shrinking and cite GDP growth, but that is problematic in many respects. First, I am not speaking of the purely financial shrinkage of the economy, which is hugely moved upwards by government deficit spending itself. I am speaking of the ability of the average citizen to find a job. Compared to 1976 when I graduated high school, the economy as a job opportunity provider has definitely shrunken; lol, there isnt even a need to fetch the numbers except to obscure obvious facts. I was able to find work from the time I was 14 years old and bused tables at a local restaurant and worked as a janitor after school at my own high school. When I got out of the Army in September of 1983 I was able to walk up to a construction site and get a job that same day and start that same day. Most cannot do that any more, unless you are a computer engineering genius of foreign birth.
Secondly, none of our government provided data is worth a cold bucket of spit any more as the numbers are more manipulated than an old water hose. The pay and opportunity for nongovernment jobs, excluding contracting with the government also, is way way down. And the government provided charts are simply sophisticated lies that are designed to assure people that they are in an exceptionally bad place but most people are thriving in our Brave New World of Free-For-All Trade and black market labor. And the governments problem is that no one believes their bullshit statistics any more anyway. After you adjust for inflation and factor out higher government spending, after tax incomes are down on average for American citizens. And no it is not Obamas fault. This is built into the current system in order to bring down US labor costs to Third World levels and all the Establishment is involved in this Biggest Robbery in History.

Capitalism is going to die off, largely, and be reduced to a mere trickle of human endeavor, but getting there without massive bloodletting is the problem because people today think of security in the form of job availability.

I like you sig, BTW.

Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
― William F. Buckley Jr.

Most people do not seek Truth. As the movie 'The Big Short' said, "Truth is like poetry and most people fucking hate poetry."

But the poets rule as their art requires an insight that allows them to understand and manipulate the rest of us. And they as the Writing Class do.

Wow...a lot of writing for agreeing with "most of it." LOL (Just messin' witcha.)

I'll have to read it carefully when I have time to process it as a whole. Just scanned quickly for now and that's not fair for a topic/post such as this.

TY for kind words re: my sig. I haven't seen that film, but I may want to now. <winks> ...nice line...

 

[320 Years of History]

Sorry, but I have to respond in "drips and spurts."

My point about Marx is not that he completely ignored technology, not at all. It is technology he saw as driving the capitalization of industry as well as investment, procedural efficiency improvements and so forth. What Marx overlooked it seems to me, is that each new technology began a new industry, a new market that would restart the process of capitalization of that industry all over again. This gave capitalism a breathing space that it needed to last another 200 years that it seems to me Marx did not anticipate.

No doubt about it. Marx believed competition would cause some capitalists’ firms to fail, increasing unemployment (and thus misery and poverty) among the proletariat. Innovations in technology were not necessarily positive; new machines would add to unemployment, by rendering human labor increasingly inefficient and obsolete, while also making work dull, repetitive, and alienating.

As goes the role of technology, I think you're looking too narrowly at what constitutes a new industry as compared to and with what constitutes the evolution of an existing industry. It's a matter of scale and scope that I think is leading you to your conclusions. I can see how one might do that for we think of, say, computers effecting the death of the typewriter industry. But really, what is the industry to which typewriters belonged? It's the communication industry. Computers, or perhaps more precisely semiconductors, changed the way we communicate, but they didn't create a new industry. The only way one cay they did is that a specific SIC code got created for them, but codes and classifications such as that are more for the sake of breaking down massive industries into manageable bits that can be measured.

Seen from an national economic theory/system perspective, there probably won't be any new industries until someone comes up with/popularizes a technology that inspires consumers to do something they never did before in any way shape or form (as consumers). One example of that which we can plausibly imagine coming about is cloning. On the other hand, if/when someone invents cold fusion, it'll just be an evolution within the energy industry. Even "supercars" that perform like George Jetson's won't bring about a new industry, but rather merely evolve the transportation industry, for such cars would essentially be robots, but consumers won't be buying a robotic car for its own sake, they'll still be buying transportation..

For reference's sake and to give you a better sense of what I'm saying, I'll suggest, along with the book I linked to earlier, the following, and shorter by far and to say the least (LOL), works:

• Understanding Society: Marx's thinking about technology
  
• Marx on technical change in the critical edition

You stated, "Members in DS find satisfaction in obtaining access to the upper limits of what the society produces; members in Marxism find satisfaction in knowing they are neither better nor worse off than their peers and not being concerned with what might be available at the limits of what's possible." I don't think that people who [aren't] entirely satisfied with their lot in life want to migrate in such numbers that the state has to build walls to prevent their nation from becoming largely depopulated. Even in a dictatorship, people can vote with their feet and the vote seems to be that Marxist Leninism is not all that satisfying while democratic capitalism is; at least for a time.

I think you meant "aren't" rather than "are." Is that correct? (see "aren't" in brackets in the quote above)

Perhaps I unintentionally misled you. By "satisfaction in obtaining access to the upper limits of what society produces," I was referring to folks' desire and deeds to have more and get that which is "better" as their approach to obtaining utility.

Red:
You and I agree on this. Indeed, I don't think the political system that's combined with capitalism matters -- democratic, socialist, etc.

 

[320 Years of History]

You stated, "What differs is that in a democratic republic, regardless of the extent to which socialist/centrally controlled economics play a role, the leaders of the revolution say "pick me and I'll fix" things, whereas in Marx's revolution, the masses are supposed to pick nobody and enact the revolution and what comes after it by and for themselves, having no leader at the top." - Which is why it cannot work that way; people MUST be led.

Red: Agreed.

You state, "Yes, well, it may not be a feature of communism to, but who knows? We've yet to see communism in play on a national scale." And I would add to that that we never will. Pure communism is an ideal that can never be attained, like the limit of a mathematical function.

Red: Agreed.

technology advancing so far that it makes capitalism itself obsolete.

I suppose that could happen, but for tech to get so advanced that it makes literally everything like air in abundance and availability is way off in the future.

Without a shortage of supply for the necessities of life, capitalism cannot exist except on the smallest scale of barter and an exchange in favors and labor. When technology allows for us all to have everything we need for very little currency, capitalism will dry up and fall off the back of humanity like a snakes old dead skin.

That, unlike reaching a limit, could actually happen. I doubt it'll happen anytime soon, willfully or as a deliberate action by the people and nations of the world. LOL

Red:
Absent shortage of some sort, there is no need to discuss economics. Economics is after all about nothing but how people behave, make choices, in the face of scarcity, be it scarcity in land, labor or capital. Of course when there's no scarcity of a given thing, that thing cannot be bought or sold. It becomes like air.

You said, "Given that the collective must make productive and consumptive choices as one, the economics and politics are inextricably linked." Why must 'the collective' make their choices 'as one'? That seems counter productive to the goal of each person finding their own satisfaction for their own lives.

They must make their choices as one because that's what allows everyone to gain the utility they need, even if some folks don't have an overabundance of satisfaction. In the ideal collective, "no pig may become more 'equal,' more satisfied, than any other pig. I think you and I both understand that just isn't going to happen. We are social beings, but we are not ants or bees.

You replied to my statement regarding the definition of the process of capitalism, 'That isn't what capitalism is. Capitalism is an economic system whereby supply and demand determine the uses and allocation of resources in the presence of scarcity.' And while capitalism is that, of course, what I was pointing out was more in reference to the industry specific process of capitalization, which is the lone strength of capitalism as compared to other economic theoretical systems. Capitalism is essentially a hands off view of the capitalization of individual industries as they make themselves more efficient, and thus reduce the cost of labor and lower the quality of life of the laborer.

Red:
Well, yes, that is a consequence of capitalism. I don't think we disagree about the downsides of that economic system. Where we disagree is on whether to the bee for stinging or another creature for not leaving it alone and finding a way to exist without incurring the bee's wrath.

• Individuals can opt to develop their skills so as to labor in a field that has less labor availability than more, and thus earn a decent wage.
• Individuals can opt to develop their skills so as to labor in a field whereof consumers place a high value on the fruits of their labor.
• Individuals can opt to be capitalists, that is, buyers and sellers of the levers of capitalism -- land, labor and capital -- rather than being one of the levers.

The undeniable fact of capitalism is that the best thing to be is a capitalist, not a laborer. There are lots of labor jobs that are well compensated, but none better than that of the capitalist.

You say that the economy is not shrinking and cite GDP growth, but that is problematic in many respects. First, I am not speaking of the purely financial shrinkage of the economy, which is hugely moved upwards by government deficit spending itself. I am speaking of the ability of the average citizen to find a job. Compared to 1976 when I graduated high school, the economy as a job opportunity provider has definitely shrunken; lol, there isnt even a need to fetch the numbers except to obscure obvious facts. I was able to find work from the time I was 14 years old and bused tables at a local restaurant and worked as a janitor after school at my own high school. When I got out of the Army in September of 1983 I was able to walk up to a construction site and get a job that same day and start that same day. Most cannot do that any more, unless you are a computer engineering genius of foreign birth.

It hasn't shrunk. It's changed. The quantity of jobs isn't different, but the key skills one needs to get them are no longer merely being physical able to do the work and mentally able to or to learn to "put square pegs in square holes." The U.S. used to have a comparative advantage in physical labor. It no longer does. It's that simple.

The pay and opportunity for nongovernment jobs, excluding contracting with the government also, is way way down.

That is not so, except for folks who insist on (for whatever reason) only performing physical labor.

the government provided charts are simply sophisticated lies that are designed to assure people that they are in an exceptionally bad place but most people are thriving in our Brave New World of Free-For-All Trade and black market labor. And the governments problem is that no one believes their bullshit statistics any more anyway. After you adjust for inflation and factor out higher government spending, after tax incomes are down on average for American citizens.

If the government's data are lies, who do you expect has the accurate figures on what inflation, for example, is? You can't sit there and tell me you don't believe the government's figures and then talk about "adjusting for inflation" without telling me whose inflation figures you're using.

Red:
By what measure and compared to when? Looking at the charts below, median income has in fact increased over the long term. Comparing income before and after the Great Recession, Americans are indeed behind where they were prior to that event. But considering that the Great Recession was not the Depression of 2008 is largely because nobody wanted to call it a depression.

• From 2009: Why this is the worst recession, not a depression - Mar. 25, 2009
  
• From 2014: Why the great recession is now a depression
  
• From 2014: 2008 crisis: Worse than the Great Depression?

(Source for the charts below: Median Household Income Growth: Deflating the American Dream - dshort - Advisor Perspectives)

What has remained flat is purchasing power.

This is built into the current system in order to bring down US labor costs to Third World levels and all the Establishment is involved in this Biggest Robbery in History.

That remark has conspiratorial undertone and implies that the "robbery" is a coordinated act. I just don't buy that it is.