Why OWS Is Kinda' Sad...

Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:41 am by OldHorseman

.

- People really do complicate the heck out of things when they're trying to justify what would be clearly wrong if you looked at it straight-on. Especially in social-political theories. Layer on enough BS and maybe nobody will see that you're arguing for theft and slavery of others for your own benefit. Maybe you'll even convince yourself.

- Folks these days have plenty to be genuinely pissed about. And I think it's generally a good thing that they're finally starting to realize it. But the direction so many are lashing-out in, and the 'solutions' they espouse, are kind of troubling.

- The anti-capitalism aspect of the OWS kids at best suggests that they have a poor understanding of what capitalism actually is. "Capital" is any resource which, if invested in a successful enterprise, produces a profit, part or all of which may be invested in additional enterprises for more profit. With a bit of wisdom and luck, a person can accumulate considerable wealth this way. There is also a natural potential for enterprises to fail, putting invested capital at risk.

- True capitalism is essentially the natural reality of the winner getting the prize. It appeals to people who see themselves as potential winners.

- Socialism/communism seems generous and humanitarian at first glance. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Egalitarian.

- But, in reality, it's a system that punishes achievement and rewards failure. It inherently appeals to people who see themselves as losers.

- That's why it's sad to see this many kids spewing socialist mantras. I'm horrified to think that they have so little faith in themselves that they want to embrace a system designed for those who have no hope of winning as individuals.

- (I can only hope that, like the original hippies, who preached Marxism in the '60s when it made them 'cool' with the in-crowd, but ultimately voted Reagan in twice when they weren't trying to impress other hippies, a lot of them are just 'along for the ride'... )

- What we actually have today is technical fascism. A diabolical system that twists aspects of both capitalism and socialism into a warped monstrosity that does indeed make it unreasonably difficult for most individuals to succeed. That's something worth being angry about.

- There are two sides to the coin of economic fascism...

- Corporations and their banks are one. Corporations are a legal fiction created to protect the flesh-and-blood people who own and run big businesses from being liable... THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE. Through corporations, some people can try to profit from capitalism, but are immune to the natural risks. The corporation (a fictional entity) can run up huge debts, then collapse... And the people who owned and ran the corporation aren't liable for those debts. They don't lose the wealth they gained in salaries and dividends. And they can turn right around and start over again with a new corporation.

- The flip-side is the Government. Using socialism as an excuse, the Government claims the power to take wealth from individuals by force, much of which they channel into corporations. Further, the Government regulates corporations and industries, supposedly to protect the public from corporate power, but in reality to empower big corporations by throwing regulatory road-blocks in the path of upstart competition. Also, just to rub salt in the wounds, the Government bails out failing corporations and banks with money taken from the public by force.

- By the way, in the economic sense, fascism isn't about rounding up the Jews or goose-stepping in parades... It's essentially Corporate Government. The power elite running things through the intertwined fictional entities of the state and corporations. The Government pretends to deserve authority in the name of socialism, while the corporations practice mock capitalism in a game fixed by the Government.

- Socialism is not an answer. Just an excuse for more fascist Government. The only problem with real, free-market capitalism in America is that there's far too little of it.

- Truth is that fascism is too well entrenched to be defeated now. No social/political action is going to bring about more than cosmetic card-shuffling. (Although some of the OWS demands actually fit nicely with the probable plan to tighten US fascism for the contraction.)

- On the opposite end of the spectrum, I don't think even the election of Ron Paul would have any real effect on the system. He might be able to render the implosion a little less bloody, but it's too late to avoid it.

- Soon the whole argument will be moot. Either you'll be in the Fedghettos where GovCo power will be absolute, or outside where there'll be no entrenched structure with the means to enforce involuntary wealth redistribution beyond straight-up banditry.

- That's my real interest in the whole political scene today... A gauge of just what kind of people we have in America going into LATOC. And it's pretty depressing when I see so many who think it's a wonderful idea to bleed the 'rich' to death to get more free stuff for themselves. I imagine these same losers will feel it's 'unfair' when we've got clean water, milk, eggs, etc., while they're running out of supermarket loot. Nevermind that we're only 'rich' because we worked like hell for decades and didn't blow the bulk of our resources on status-symbol gizmos, cars, and endless matriculation with no practical goal... I only hope that most of the OWS types are early into the Fedghettos. I'm not particularly looking forward to listening to swarms of buzzards over in the next valley after they try to absorb my doomstead into their 'collective'.

- The rising popularity of Ron Paul, on the other hand, is a bright note. Even if he somehow manages to get elected (despite the fact that Fox News is trying to kill his candidacy), there's no way he can save the republic. But people with a 'just get the damned government out of our way so we can find our own solutions' attitude are exactly who I want to have around in LATOC.

.

Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:53 am by ralfy

OldHorseman wrote:.

- People really do complicate the heck out of things when they're trying to justify what would be clearly wrong if you looked at it straight-on. Especially in social-political theories. Layer on enough BS and maybe nobody will see that you're arguing for theft and slavery of others for your own benefit. Maybe you'll even convince yourself.

I always thought that it was the other way round, i.e., people usually try to simplify the issue by seeing capitalism through as romantic view of the past.

- Folks these days have plenty to be genuinely pissed about. And I think it's generally a good thing that they're finally starting to realize it. But the direction so many are lashing-out in, and the 'solutions' they espouse, are kind of troubling.

Indeed, the solutions are troubling for the elite and their supporters, especially tea baggers.

- The anti-capitalism aspect of the OWS kids at best suggests that they have a poor understanding of what capitalism actually is. "Capital" is any resource which, if invested in a successful enterprise, produces a profit, part or all of which may be invested in additional enterprises for more profit. With a bit of wisdom and luck, a person can accumulate considerable wealth this way. There is also a natural potential for enterprises to fail, putting invested capital at risk.

But isn't the last point the one of contention in this issue, with the movement calling on the government to get back the bailout funds and let Wall Street fall apart?

- True capitalism is essentially the natural reality of the winner getting the prize. It appeals to people who see themselves as potential winners.

Isn't this what happened in the U.S., with Wall Street winning from gambling, and now getting Washington (which it owns) to bail it out?

- Socialism/communism seems generous and humanitarian at first glance. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Egalitarian.

Perhaps this is the ideal form, like some weird idea of "true capitalism." But likely what we have in socialist countries is state capitalism.

- But, in reality, it's a system that punishes achievement and rewards failure. It inherently appeals to people who see themselves as losers.

But doesn't this go against your earlier view, i.e., one can be a winner with "a bit of wisdom and luck"? Is that what you mean by "achievement"?

- That's why it's sad to see this many kids spewing socialist mantras. I'm horrified to think that they have so little faith in themselves that they want to embrace a system designed for those who have no hope of winning as individuals.

I think the main point of the OWS is to get back the bailout funds and let Wall Street fall apart. Some even advocate both the prosecution of bankers and then the removal of government. Given that, I see overlaps between these "socialist mantras" and what OWS critics say.

- (I can only hope that, like the original hippies, who preached Marxism in the '60s when it made them 'cool' with the in-crowd, but ultimately voted Reagan in twice when they weren't trying to impress other hippies, a lot of them are just 'along for the ride'... )

I think that in general U.S. citizens are "along for the ride." What we have is likely the result of four decades of casino capitalism, with everyone--households, corporations, and government--profiting and supporting each other. Now that everything is falling apart, they are now trying to blame each other.

On the other hand, OWS may have been influenced by the Arab Spring and unrest in Madrid, and global social unrest is likely being driven by high oil and food prices.

In which case, if oil and food prices remain high....

- What we actually have today is technical fascism. A diabolical system that twists aspects of both capitalism and socialism into a warped monstrosity that does indeed make it unreasonably difficult for most individuals to succeed. That's something worth being angry about.

I think what we have is the eventual result of capitalism. That is, we start with control of resources, then the formation of government controlled, not surprisingly, by those with financial power making that control legitimate, support from the middle class in exchange for high income and easy credit, the move from factory work and mechanized agriculture to the service industry, esp. the finance industry, more profits earned through financial speculation, cheap goods and labor from overseas, fallout from a credit crunch as financial speculation fails, then bailouts for the elite from the government that they own, with households footing the bill.

Behind all that is the threat of a resource crunch, brought about by increasing consumption from the middle class and from a growing number of people worldwide who want to be part of the same.

- There are two sides to the coin of economic fascism...

- Corporations and their banks are one. Corporations are a legal fiction created to protect the flesh-and-blood people who own and run big businesses from being liable... THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE. Through corporations, some people can try to profit from capitalism, but are immune to the natural risks. The corporation (a fictional entity) can run up huge debts, then collapse... And the people who owned and ran the corporation aren't liable for those debts. They don't lose the wealth they gained in salaries and dividends. And they can turn right around and start over again with a new corporation.

My understanding is that the corporation is the eventual result of capitalism.

- The flip-side is the Government. Using socialism as an excuse, the Government claims the power to take wealth from individuals by force, much of which they channel into corporations. Further, the Government regulates corporations and industries, supposedly to protect the public from corporate power, but in reality to empower big corporations by throwing regulatory road-blocks in the path of upstart competition. Also, just to rub salt in the wounds, the Government bails out failing corporations and banks with money taken from the public by force.

I think this is also the eventual result of capitalism, i.e., government works for those in financial power. That's why it bailed out the latter.

- By the way, in the economic sense, fascism isn't about rounding up the Jews or goose-stepping in parades... It's essentially Corporate Government. The power elite running things through the intertwined fictional entities of the state and corporations. The Government pretends to deserve authority in the name of socialism, while the corporations practice mock capitalism in a game fixed by the Government.

I think what we have isn't a "mockery" of capitalism but the result of it.

- Socialism is not an answer. Just an excuse for more fascist Government. The only problem with real, free-market capitalism in America is that there's far too little of it.

Likely, as it may only be another form of capitalism, i.e., state capitalism. Also, I think the problem with the U.S. isn't that there was "far too little of" free market capitalism but that there was too much of free market capitalism, with "capitalism" eventually taking control of "free market". That is, we start with robber barons who exploited resources freely, then formed and took control of Wall Street freely, then took control of the government freely, and are now receiving bailouts freely. For four decades the middle class accepted such terms freely as long as they got their easy credit, and even until recently played along with Wall Street, only later telling themselves that they were "forced" to gamble. The military didn't mind as long as it got its hardware, and corporations didn't mind, as long as they could gamble in Wall Street and gain from military adventurism.

- Truth is that fascism is too well entrenched to be defeated now. No social/political action is going to bring about more than cosmetic card-shuffling. (Although some of the OWS demands actually fit nicely with the probable plan to tighten US fascism for the contraction.)

Likely, and that will eventually make the OWS no different from its critics.

- On the opposite end of the spectrum, I don't think even the election of Ron Paul would have any real effect on the system. He might be able to render the implosion a little less bloody, but it's too late to avoid it.

Likely because Ron Paul is also part of the "cosmetic card-shuffling."

- Soon the whole argument will be moot. Either you'll be in the Fedghettos where GovCo power will be absolute, or outside where there'll be no entrenched structure with the means to enforce involuntary wealth redistribution beyond straight-up banditry.

Or both, which is what takes place in poor countries, where the poor face paramilitary units or thugs working for landowners and bandits.

- That's my real interest in the whole political scene today... A gauge of just what kind of people we have in America going into LATOC. And it's pretty depressing when I see so many who think it's a wonderful idea to bleed the 'rich' to death to get more free stuff for themselves. I imagine these same losers will feel it's 'unfair' when we've got clean water, milk, eggs, etc., while they're running out of supermarket loot. Nevermind that we're only 'rich' because we worked like hell for decades and didn't blow the bulk of our resources on status-symbol gizmos, cars, and endless matriculation with no practical goal... I only hope that most of the OWS types are early into the Fedghettos. I'm not particularly looking forward to listening to swarms of buzzards over in the next valley after they try to absorb my doomstead into their 'collective'.

Wait a minute: you consider yourself part of Wall Street?

Also, isn't a "doomstead" also made possible because of corporations and government, with loans to purchase the area made possible through bank loans, the lease guaranteed by local government, roads and other infrastructure needed to ship in tools and other products needed for the doomstead built by government and corporations, etc? Perhaps even earnings from one's job and returns on investment are part of the same.

- The rising popularity of Ron Paul, on the other hand, is a bright note. Even if he somehow manages to get elected (despite the fact that Fox News is trying to kill his candidacy), there's no way he can save the republic. But people with a 'just get the damned government out of our way so we can find our own solutions' attitude are exactly who I want to have around in LATOC.

.

But isn't that what some in OWS want, i.e., "just get the damned government out of our way so we can find our own solutions"?

Also, my understanding is that the only "solution" for everyone is to cut down heavily on borrowing and spending, which also means cutting down heavily on resource consumption, which in turn means localization, sustainability, and helping each other out, all completely the opposite of what is needed to keep a capitalist system going. In such a situation, even the idea of private property will be meaningless.

Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:46 pm by Picasso Moon

Just one point to address here:

Capital" is any resource which, if invested in a successful enterprise, produces a profit, part or all of which may be invested in additional enterprises for more profit. With a bit of wisdom and luck, a person can accumulate considerable wealth this way. There is also a natural potential for enterprises to fail, putting invested capital at risk.

Excellent example of commodity fetishism. So somehow a resource is invested and magically produces a profit. How does that happen? Magic? By the enterprise earning more than its costs, goes the conventional answer. Nice, except that this answer was disproved by Adam Smith, David Ricardo and the other political economists 200 years ago, all staunch advocates of capitalism. They demonstrated that if one looks beyond the single enterprise at society as a whole, what is one enterprise's revenue is another enterprise's cost, and that if all enterprises simply sold at say 10% above cost, the result would be that each would wind up with exactly the same amount of money it started with. Even if some made more than others, all that would happen would be a redistribution, not a growth of total social capital, which is obviously what happens in any healthy economic situation.
The political economists could never explain the source of profit, even if they realized that it's not from selling at above cost. It fell to Marx and his critique of political economy to show that the source is unpaid human labor, all the work time spent in producing goods and services needed by human beings for their self-reproduction, beyond the time it takes to produce those they need for their own survival. This surplus time, in the form of value, i.e. surplus value,is the source of all profits. And the extra work time only takes place because people are forced to work to earn money to buy their survival needs. coerced to do so by their forced separation from the means of producing survival needs, particularly from the land. Capitalism in other words exists only because of mass coercion, mass dispossession and mass exploitation.

Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:57 pm by OldHorseman

ralfy wrote:I always thought that it was the other way round, i.e., people usually try to simplify the issue by seeing capitalism through as romantic view of the past.

- Ah... Everybody does that with everything. Socialists harken back to a mythical age of happy, communal living as well.

Indeed, the solutions are troubling for the elite and their supporters, especially tea baggers.

- The Elite aren't troubled by any of it. There is no mechanism that can thwart them at this point. The OWS movement actually plays nicely into their hands. (That's the marvel of fascism. Pendulum swings Left, pendulum swings Right, they win either way!)

- "Tea baggers." Isn't it funny that an obscene epithet can routinely be employed against the Conservative movement, but the OWS punks are supposed to be some kind of heroes? The political double-standard is pretty blatant these days.

But isn't the last point the one of contention in this issue, with the movement calling on the government to get back the bailout funds and let Wall Street fall apart?

- They'll find themselves in agreement with a lot of Tea Party folk, and all Ron Paul supporters in that case. Government bailouts are absolutely contrary to free market capitalism.

Isn't this what happened in the U.S., with Wall Street winning from gambling, and now getting Washington (which it owns) to bail it out?

- Absolutely. But the OWS rhetoric isn't about fascist cheating at mock capitalism... They jump straight to "capitalism sucks, let's go socialist!"

- If we actually had free market capitalism (which we haven't in a very long time), most of these mega corporations would never have come into being to begin with. The airlines, banks, and many others would have deservedly gone-under, and we'd all be better off for it.

- But, when they finally started coming up with lists of demands, it wasn't just "stop forcing taxpayers to support reckless corporations"... It was "tax the rich (which ultimately means the productive classes, as the Elite are immune to such things) to pay for more free stuff for us!"

Perhaps this is the ideal form, like some weird idea of "true capitalism." But likely what we have in socialist countries is state capitalism.

- Which is another term for fascism. Notice how all systems ultimately get to the same place?

- The difference with America for generations was simply a lack of effective Government power. Once the state gets increasing authority, whether it's Left (direct power) or Right (power through corporate fronts), you ultimately circle around to the same scene. The OWS kids are calling for more direct power to the Government to regulate the "evil corporations" (which are also the Government)... But that power will really be used to control US.

But doesn't this go against your earlier view, i.e., one can be a winner with "a bit of wisdom and luck"? Is that what you mean by "achievement"?

- Achievement is what you get with wise application of your resources, providing luck doesn't blindside you along the way.

I think the main point of the OWS is to get back the bailout funds and let Wall Street fall apart. Some even advocate both the prosecution of bankers and then the removal of government. Given that, I see overlaps between these "socialist mantras" and what OWS critics say.

- Hell, if that's all they were calling for, I'd be proud of the kids. But what I'm seeing way too much of is "Tax other people to give us more free stuff!"

- (This is a fatal flaw in most activist movements... Wanting more Government power for their benefit, but somehow believing it won't be used against them. See similarly deluded Tea Party folks who want "less government"... Except for the police/military/and other things they like. I'll get to them shortly.)

I think that in general U.S. citizens are "along for the ride." What we have is likely the result of four decades of casino capitalism, with everyone--households, corporations, and government--profiting and supporting each other. Now that everything is falling apart, they are now trying to blame each other.

- That's true enough. That's what I'm watching. How various groups are reacting to these early stages of the collapse.

I think what we have is the eventual result of capitalism. That is, we start with control of resources, then the formation of government controlled, not surprisingly, by those with financial power making that control legitimate, support from the middle class in exchange for high income and easy credit, the move from factory work and mechanized agriculture to the service industry, esp. the finance industry, more profits earned through financial speculation, cheap goods and labor from overseas, fallout from a credit crunch as financial speculation fails, then bailouts for the elite from the government that they own, with households footing the bill.

Behind all that is the threat of a resource crunch, brought about by increasing consumption from the middle class and from a growing number of people worldwide who want to be part of the same.

- True... But the key is Government manipulation. Reduce (or better yet eliminate) the monopoly of force, and socialism, capitalism, and mixes have a chance of working... Problem is that capitalism and socialism both tend to support the growth of Government power. This is why it's sad to see people demanding more Government power, which ultimately will make things worse.

My understanding is that the corporation is the eventual result of capitalism.

- Corporation is a perversion of capitalism which only exists because Government (a corporate entity itself) recognizes it.

I think this is also the eventual result of capitalism, i.e., government works for those in financial power. That's why it bailed out the latter.

- It's the result of the twisted mix of mutated capitalism (corporatism), socialism, and excessive Government power. Government is allowed more and more power to "protect" the public from corporations, but uses that power to support the corporations, which then get bigger and scarier, prompting the people (like the OWS kids) to want the Government to have even MORE power to protect the public...

I think what we have isn't a "mockery" of capitalism but the result of it.

- The result of capitalism + Government power... Which is almost as bad as socialism + Government power.

- Unfortunately, the 'solutions' espoused by OWS are mostly more Government power.

[center]then took control of the government freely[/quote]
- There's your glitch... "Government" and "freely" don't go together. To be governed is the opposite of being free. Without Government, the "robber barons'" empires would break-up with competition and the passage of generations. Government is the con used to make it possible for power and wealth to become so concentrated.

- We need people to go back to being repulsed by the very concept of Government authority, even if the politicians are promising to use it to fight a class war for the benefit of us "little people"... They are inevitable lying.

Wait a minute: you consider yourself part of Wall Street?

- No... But I am a person who has made a considerable investment and reaped the rewards of same. The attitude that anyone who is doing better than others should have their 'surplus' confiscated and 'redistributed' is troubling to me.

Also, isn't a "doomstead" also made possible because of corporations and government, with loans to purchase the area made possible through bank loans, the lease guaranteed by local government, roads and other infrastructure needed to ship in tools and other products needed for the doomstead built by government and corporations, etc? Perhaps even earnings from one's job and returns on investment are part of the same.

- Well, it'd have been much easier to do without the byproducts of fascism driving-up the prices of land and materials, etc... But one works with the reality one is stuck with.

- But we chose to put our resources into this place, developing knowledge and skills, etc... Others chose to buy jets skies and new cars and big screen TV with mega cable packages... If they made the wrong choice, I don't think they've got any right to scream "NO FAIR!" and try to steal my milk cow when the wheels come off Cornucopia.

But isn't that what some in OWS want, i.e., "just get the damned government out of our way so we can find our own solutions"?

- Taxing the "rich" isn't getting Government out of the way. Neither is Government healthcare, free college, or the other stuff they are clamoring for.

Also, my understanding is that the only "solution" for everyone is to cut down heavily on borrowing and spending, which also means cutting down heavily on resource consumption, which in turn means localization, sustainability, and helping each other out, all completely the opposite of what is needed to keep a capitalist system going. In such a situation, even the idea of private property will be meaningless.

- At its core, capitalism is simply the idea of investing some of what you have into producing more instead of consuming it immediately... Private property is essential to the very concept of having anything to invest or invest in. (Why should I bother to build a cabin, forge a tool, raise a horse, if it's not mine to do with as I please when I'm done with it?)

- But yeah, the exponential net growth-based model is screwed... But, even after the discontinuity, when our communities reach equilibrium, there will need to be production... Enough growth to offset loss through attrition for a net balance. Somebody is going to have to invest resources, and have a hope for 'profit' to motivate them to do so.

.

Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:46 am by ralfy

OldHorseman wrote:- Ah... Everybody does that with everything. Socialists harken back to a mythical age of happy, communal living as well.

Why mythical? Conditions in countries like Cuba are still much better than in capitalist economies like those of the Philippines.

- The Elite aren't troubled by any of it. There is no mechanism that can thwart them at this point. The OWS movement actually plays nicely into their hands. (That's the marvel of fascism. Pendulum swings Left, pendulum swings Right, they win either way!)

- "Tea baggers." Isn't it funny that an obscene epithet can routinely be employed against the Conservative movement, but the OWS punks are supposed to be some kind of heroes? The political double-standard is pretty blatant these days.

'Plays nicely into their hands"? That makes no sense at all, unless you are implying that OWS is some sort of COINTELPRO initiated so that people will ignore problems like peak oil. That, of course, assumes that the elite are aware of peak oil and that much of their wealth consists of debt.

I use "tea baggers" because "tea party" is illogical, especially given the presence of corporations supporting them. But since you already admitted at the start of your post that everyone is fooled into imagining some romantic past, then shouldn't "tea bagger" be appropriate?

I don't understand how "OWS punks" are seen as heroes, unless you are now contradicting the first point you made, that the OWS are simply being manipulated by the elite. On the other hand, your views of the OWS are similar to that of Fox News and other mainstream media who depict these "punks" as the opposite of heroes. It should also be noted that the same media are controlled by the elite.

- They'll find themselves in agreement with a lot of Tea Party folk, and all Ron Paul supporters in that case. Government bailouts are absolutely contrary to free market capitalism.

But that's only part of the problem. The bailouts took place due to unregulated financial speculation, and they involve banks which citizens rely upon to buy houses and even land, and these assets are in turn used as collateral to buy goods that in turn prop up an economy that's heavily dependent on consumer spending. Tea baggers who, like Paul, are either ignorant of peak oil or are in denial, believe that by simply allowing free market capitalism, all problems will be solved. The irony is that what got the U.S. into trouble and what eventually led everyone--not just government--to borrow and spend readily is free market capitalism.

- Absolutely. But the OWS rhetoric isn't about fascist cheating at mock capitalism... They jump straight to "capitalism sucks, let's go socialist!"

My understanding is that it is.

Also, I think what is taking place is not "mock capitalism"! You start with a free market, then robber barons take over, then they form banks and manipulate the government. What, were you expecting those in financial power to do otherwise?

- If we actually had free market capitalism (which we haven't in a very long time), most of these mega corporations would never have come into being to begin with. The airlines, banks, and many others would have deservedly gone-under, and we'd all be better off for it.

Actually, that's what you had for decades! Corporations are the result of free market capitalism, as those in power now consolidate their position and take control of government.

The naive believe that in a free market capitalist system people will act rationally, e.g., they won't buy from "mega corporations," if a corporation pollutes, consumers will patronize one that doesn't, etc. Unfortunately, reality is far different from what they imagine.

- But, when they finally started coming up with lists of demands, it wasn't just "stop forcing taxpayers to support reckless corporations"... It was "tax the rich (which ultimately means the productive classes, as the Elite are immune to such things) to pay for more free stuff for us!"

They should be mentioning such, esp. given reports about tax cuts!

Productive classes? So, now you're defending the same "mega corporations" that you argue should not have existed in the first place?

Perhaps this is the ideal form, like some weird idea of "true capitalism." But likely what we have in socialist countries is state capitalism.

- Which is another term for fascism. Notice how all systems ultimately get to the same place?

Does this mean, then, that there's no such thing as "true capitalism"?

- The difference with America for generations was simply a lack of effective Government power. Once the state gets increasing authority, whether it's Left (direct power) or Right (power through corporate fronts), you ultimately circle around to the same scene. The OWS kids are calling for more direct power to the Government to regulate the "evil corporations" (which are also the Government)... But that power will really be used to control US.

Doesn't this contradict your earlier argument, that there was no free market capitalism in the U.S. and instead "government power"?

Achievement is what you get with wise application of your resources, providing luck doesn't blindside you along the way.

So the winners, those who control the same "mega corporations" that you believe should not exist in the first place, you now praise because of their "wise application of....resources"?

- Hell, if that's all they were calling for, I'd be proud of the kids. But what I'm seeing way too much of is "Tax other people to give us more free stuff!"

FWIW, here's a a draft of the manifesto:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/17/occup ... manifesto/

I've no idea where you are getting these ideas about getting free stuff or socialism. From what I gathered, the amount needed to help citizens will be very small compared to what the elite are gambling or what the government has given to them.

If any, the problem for OWS is that many are not aware of problems like peak oil. On the other hand, if Occupy is a global phenomenon, i.e., it started in the Middle East and spread to countries like Spain, then what we are looking at is likely even more troubling than the points raised in the manifesto. Likely, what we are looking at is growing social unrest driven by high food and oil prices, and I think it will only become worse. In which case, the results of problems like peak oil has not affected OWS yet, but it is for much of the world.

And I don't think the reasons you gave will stop that unrest.

- (This is a fatal flaw in most activist movements... Wanting more Government power for their benefit, but somehow believing it won't be used against them. See similarly deluded Tea Party folks who want "less government"... Except for the police/military/and other things they like. I'll get to them shortly.)

But doesn't your point about "less government" being a "deluded" view also work against your earlier points, where you claim that the problem for the U.S. is that it has never had free market capitalism and instead, implicitly, too much government?

I think that in general U.S. citizens are "along for the ride." What we have is likely the result of four decades of casino capitalism, with everyone--households, corporations, and government--profiting and supporting each other. Now that everything is falling apart, they are now trying to blame each other.

- That's true enough. That's what I'm watching. How various groups are reacting to these early stages of the collapse.[/quote]

On the other hand, aren't the other points in your message calling for more of the same? That is, these "punks" should stop wasting their time and do something resourceful so that they will be "winners" like the elite, and that government should not regulate even if they hardly did in the first place, etc?

- True... But the key is Government manipulation. Reduce (or better yet eliminate) the monopoly of force, and socialism, capitalism, and mixes have a chance of working... Problem is that capitalism and socialism both tend to support the growth of Government power. This is why it's sad to see people demanding more Government power, which ultimately will make things worse.

I don't understand this part: are you saying that correct government manipulation will be needed to ensure such reduction, or are you referring to another entity to enforce such?

- Corporation is a perversion of capitalism which only exists because Government (a corporate entity itself) recognizes it.

This contradicts your earlier admission that all forms of capitalism are essentially driven by fascism.

Thus, there is no "perversion of capitalism," no "true capitalism," as if there exists some powerful entity that will ensure such. If any, the corporation is the result of capitalism. Worse, you can even see this as an example of resourcefulness on the part of the "winners".

- It's the result of the twisted mix of mutated capitalism (corporatism), socialism, and excessive Government power. Government is allowed more and more power to "protect" the public from corporations, but uses that power to support the corporations, which then get bigger and scarier, prompting the people (like the OWS kids) to want the Government to have even MORE power to protect the public...

There's no such thing as "mutated capitalism," only corporatism as the result of free market capitalism, and socialism driven by state capitalism. The OWS is prompted to demand that the government not be given "more and more power," as you already admitted earlier that the government has not been an "effective power" in the first place, but to prosecute Wall Street. Even Ron Paul and several tea baggers want the same.

- The result of capitalism + Government power... Which is almost as bad as socialism + Government power.

Obvious, as there's no such thing as capitalism without government.

- Unfortunately, the 'solutions' espoused by OWS are mostly more Government power.

Not more, but the implementation of "effective government power," given a lack of the same which you admitted earlier.

- There's your glitch... "Government" and "freely" don't go together. To be governed is the opposite of being free. Without Government, the "robber barons'" empires would break-up with competition and the passage of generations. Government is the con used to make it possible for power and wealth to become so concentrated.

That's why "robber barons" either form governments or manipulate present ones. Remove that government and they will form a new one.

This, ironically, was one reason you gave for criticizing the OWS: it's useless to demand justice from a government that works for the elite. And you even pointed out that the elite would not care as it essentially controls the government.

And yet you also implied that the elite are winners and that the OWS exists only because it is composed of losers. The "solution" is for the losers to become resourceful so that they will be winners, too. And yet part of that resourcefulness on part of the elite involved manipulating government.

And for all that, you implicitly argue that we should have less government, which contradicts your first point, as the elite need that government to maintain power.

- We need people to go back to being repulsed by the very concept of Government authority, even if the politicians are promising to use it to fight a class war for the benefit of us "little people"... They are inevitable lying.

But government works for capitalists, and since you are now implying that politicians will not use their authority to "fight a class war for the benefit of us 'little people,'" the the "little people" will have to fight a class war against the government and capitalists!

I agree!

- No... But I am a person who has made a considerable investment and reaped the rewards of same. The attitude that anyone who is doing better than others should have their 'surplus' confiscated and 'redistributed' is troubling to me.

And you now consider yourself part of the "little people"?

You do realize, though, that a "class war," which you just implicitly supported, on behalf of the "little people," of course, will entail that "attitude" that you think should not take place?

- Well, it'd have been much easier to do without the byproducts of fascism driving-up the prices of land and materials, etc... But one works with the reality one is stuck with.

I suppose the same applies to the OWS, i.e., barring physical violence against government authority and bankers.

- But we chose to put our resources into this place, developing knowledge and skills, etc... Others chose to buy jets skies and new cars and big screen TV with mega cable packages... If they made the wrong choice, I don't think they've got any right to scream "NO FAIR!" and try to steal my milk cow when the wheels come off Cornucopia.

Excellent point, but I think this is a problem not just for OWS but for most U.S. citizens! Also, the same takes place in communities in Third World countries, except that its members do so not because of choice, and their situation is not pleasant as they face the same elite that they try to avoid, including paramilitary forces and corrupt police and local officials, land owners and multinational corporations, and bandits.

- Taxing the "rich" isn't getting Government out of the way. Neither is Government healthcare, free college, or the other stuff they are clamoring for.

Indeed. As you implicitly stated earlier, no less than a "class war" will have to take place. But you have to be patient, as it usually starts with non-violent unrest.

- At its core, capitalism is simply the idea of investing some of what you have into producing more instead of consuming it immediately... Private property is essential to the very concept of having anything to invest or invest in. (Why should I bother to build a cabin, forge a tool, raise a horse, if it's not mine to do with as I please when I'm done with it?)

- But yeah, the exponential net growth-based model is screwed... But, even after the discontinuity, when our communities reach equilibrium, there will need to be production... Enough growth to offset loss through attrition for a net balance. Somebody is going to have to invest resources, and have a hope for 'profit' to motivate them to do so.

.

[/quote]

Indeed, which is why claims such as "true capitalism" are nonsense.

Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:02 pm by OldHorseman

- And here is why I usually tend to avoid political discussions, and created the political subsection to keep the whole board from getting sidetracked by such moot distractions... It's way too easy to spend time at the keyboard arguing about this stuff when I should be investing my effort on paying gigs.

So somehow a resource is invested and magically produces a profit. How does that happen? Magic?

- Technically alchemy, in some cases. :lol:

- So I invest a bit of near-worthless scrap metal, some cheap coal, and my own time, multiplied by my tools and skills, and produce a worth considerably more than the scrap metal and coal. Profit... Without anyone else being coerced in any way.

- Trader Jack comes along and offers me two ounces of silver for my tool. I willingly sell it to him. He's happy, I'm happy. No coercion so far...

- TJ goes into the next county, where tools are in high demand. Sells the tool to somebody for four ounces of silver, making a nice profit for himself. The buyer is happy with his new tool, TJ is happy with his extra silver, and I'm happy with my two ounces of silver. Nobody was coerced. Nobody was cheated.

- Let's say this becomes a regular business... I find a fellow who has passable skill behind the anvil, but no shop to work in, and no reputation with tool buyers... I hire him to work in my shop and pay him 1 oz silver per tool. I sell these (along with my own work) to TJ for 2 oz silver, he resells them for 4 oz silver...

- Still no coercion anywhere in this system. If my journeyman feels he's getting a raw deal, he can go find another shop to work in, set-up his own shop, or find something else to do. If I think I'm getting a bad deal, I can stop selling my tools to TJ... But so long as my journeyman, myself, TJ, and the tool buyers are all willing to continue our trade, where does anyone else get off telling us we're not 'allowed' to do so because they see some sort of 'exploitation'?

.

Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:58 pm by ralfy

OldHorseman wrote:- And here is why I usually tend to avoid political discussions, and created the political subsection to keep the whole board from getting sidetracked by such moot distractions... It's way too easy to spend time at the keyboard arguing about this stuff when I should be investing my effort on paying gigs.

So somehow a resource is invested and magically produces a profit. How does that happen? Magic?

- Technically alchemy, in some cases.

- So I invest a bit of near-worthless scrap metal, some cheap coal, and my own time, multiplied by my tools and skills, and produce a worth considerably more than the scrap metal and coal. Profit... Without anyone else being coerced in any way.

- Trader Jack comes along and offers me two ounces of silver for my tool. I willingly sell it to him. He's happy, I'm happy. No coercion so far...

- TJ goes into the next county, where tools are in high demand. Sells the tool to somebody for four ounces of silver, making a nice profit for himself. The buyer is happy with his new tool, TJ is happy with his extra silver, and I'm happy with my two ounces of silver. Nobody was coerced. Nobody was cheated.

- Let's say this becomes a regular business... I find a fellow who has passable skill behind the anvil, but no shop to work in, and no reputation with tool buyers... I hire him to work in my shop and pay him 1 oz silver per tool. I sell these (along with my own work) to TJ for 2 oz silver, he resells them for 4 oz silver...

- Still no coercion anywhere in this system. If my journeyman feels he's getting a raw deal, he can go find another shop to work in, set-up his own shop, or find something else to do. If I think I'm getting a bad deal, I can stop selling my tools to TJ... But so long as my journeyman, myself, TJ, and the tool buyers are all willing to continue our trade, where does anyone else get off telling us we're not 'allowed' to do so because they see some sort of 'exploitation'?

.

With competition, manufacturers have to keep prices low, and that means increasing production but maintaining labor costs, among others. But if manufacturers also compete with increasing production, then you have to look for investors. Unfortunately, that will also involve competition, as investors will want a higher return on their investments. In which case, you have to increase production even further.

If it turns out that your workers are also your customers, then you won't be able to sell more of what you produced unless you increase wages, which also increases labor costs. But higher labor costs eats up profits, which means less returns for your investors. Thus, more credit is extended to workers.

When labor costs reach a certain amount and workers now have a higher cost of living, then they start moving to industries where they can earn more, such as financing and service. Manufacturing can be outsourced to another country, where the same process takes place.

It reaches a point when those in what are now industrialized countries want to maintain their lifestyle or even improve it further, which in turn requires obtaining goods, resources, and labor cheaply overseas. That requires coercing these countries through various means, such as implementing structural adjustment policies, using military force, supporting governments that will control the economy by keeping wages and spending low, etc.

Ultimately, you have a growth-based model (which you acknowledged at the end of your message to me) where there has to be increasing production and consumption of goods driven by increasing credit, with cheap labor and resources obtained from most, but with most also dreaming of having what the few have.

Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:26 pm by hutoftung

OldHorseman wrote:- And here is why I usually tend to avoid political discussions, and created the political subsection to keep the whole board from getting sidetracked by such moot distractions... It's way too easy to spend time at the keyboard arguing about this stuff when I should be investing my effort on paying gigs.

I feel your pain, OH. I don't like wasting time with this crap too much either.

The objections ralfy raised in the previous post of course apply to systems at or near carrying capacity with specialized labor as the norm, and where communication is easy enough that corporations can form. There's a limit to how much one person can do especially if that person has to oversee it all. Limited further by how far a few people can transport and trade without non-renewable power sources. And a limit to what a few can defend when there's no over-arching government to keep trade routes open and provide extra force for individuals when needed.

Why OWS Is Kinda' Sad...

Why OWS Is Kinda' Sad...

Re: Why OWS Is Kinda' Sad...

Re: Why OWS Is Kinda' Sad...

Re: Why OWS Is Kinda' Sad...

Re: Why OWS Is Kinda' Sad...

Re: Why OWS Is Kinda' Sad...

Re: Why OWS Is Kinda' Sad...

Re: Why OWS Is Kinda' Sad...

Who is online