Q: How does Marxist economics work to efficiently produce goods and services without becoming a corrupt self-defeating leviathan state? Better yet, how does Marxist economic production even work free of private market actors?
This seems to be the greatest confusion covered in bad arguments that create the armchair libertarian anti-ideology status quo.
A: Read Cockshott's Towards A New Socialism, his blog and related papers on economic planning.
The internet allows for new organisation, institutional and educational structures. A communist party post-internet allows for decentralized economic planning, powered by neural networks and fully transparent free software, for instance.
There's no "Marxist economic production". Marx wasn't an utopianist sci-fi writer.
How is that different than the current Google business model?
So capitalism works better?
Let's talk about your assumptions. Why is a "leviathan state" bad? You need large organisations to coordinate over large distances. Think of how big Amazon is for example.
maybe next time you'll last longer than 2 posts, Zig Forums
you're learning, though, usually it takes just one post to see you
how do you guys manage to ask loaded questions and still get that many replies without being saged, bumplocked and banned
All I ever heard of was how Communism takes profits that would otherwise be reinvested and put into spending back to the worker.
But then who funds investment? Who decides what should be made with what quantities?
This is the big secret that socialists say "u just pay 4" by creating runaway inflation through a market economy as a moral good. Which is little more than transferring wealth from consumer spending power back into the pockets of political loyalists. Devaluing capital assets until their price collapses completely. Then what was a wealthier country becomes a public works program of digging ditches for food rations.
Naturally, outside nations believe in the worst of communism as a threat to their freedom and wealth.
Well then, on the same line of thought, why is a private leviathan bad if it reduces prices by creating an efficiency monopoly? Provide the perfect product at the perfect price? I purchase many goods through amazon services because they are extremely competitive and convenient.
Are there resources to show how communist state economics work better to provide value , fairness, and greater workers rights?
Jason Unruhe is intelligent enough to dispel really stupid common libertarian points with facts. Most should be apparent to begin with, that yes the state will always exist, but he gets into some economic theory.
Debunking Libertarianism Part 1
youtube.com
if you think I'm gonna "debate" you you're out of your fucking mind
This isn't really a debate. I want to know where i can find socialist economics from a Marxists point of view and demonstrate how superior it was to capitalism.
All I can find is normie conservative stuff proudly published by the CIA.
First understand that communism isn't capitalism with red paint. Then maybe there can be discussion.
What said.
You won't be able to visualize any form of socialist economy if you keep working with capitalist organization methods.
comunism is not the present economy "but everyone gets the same pay" or "the workers decide everything".
If marxism can't be explained by math, how is this socialism scientific?
...
Ey we gots a math professor over ere. Please explain neoclassical economics using math my good sir.
when did i mention math smart boy.
organization methods
as in work hierarchies.
decision making process.
production chains.
You can't create socialist economies without different forms of the above.
In all your posts you are applying what you think are socialist measures in a capitalist economy, obviously this shit won't work.
by making those oblivious mistakes and sounding pretentious you just made aparent that you are just here for intrigue and that you have no idea what you are talking about. so no one is gonna bother spoon feeding you.
Any doubts we have a nice pinned reading list for you, with books written by people way smarter than what you will find here, folks with a big brain like yours.
boa tarde.
See Paul Cockshott's YouTube videos.
god I fucking hate these bait threads, stop responding you fags
Read Cockshott's Towards A New Socialism, his blog and related papers on economic planning
Amazon is only cheap and convenient because it hasn't won yet. If it had a true monopoly, it would openly fuck everyone sideways and invest a lot of money into brutally suppressing any attempts to break them up or outdo them.
For that matter, it has already been caught numerous times trying to shaft customers, like arbitrarily inflating prices for random users based on what the site predicted they would be willing to pay judging by past purchases.
You seem to have many preconcieved notions about entire economic systems, but no knowledge of them regardless
Perhaps you should fucking read the source material before you post. If you have questions, ah, here's Marx, and a billion other important people with differing opinions you can cite from
If you say "Durrr no I no read reading 4 nerds me American me play bad game Runescape" then that's the fucking problem. Read a fucking book
r/neoliberal and r/thedonald making the same criticisms of books they've never read because they threaten their bottom line
I wonder where the overlap is
Ok. But i don't feel like preaching Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics on a Zig Forums
Why I am against Anti-Trust laws
youtube.com
I've read some books, but they center around how unfair capitalism is because it's unequal. Well, of course life is unequal. Then I read how communism is responsible for slavery and part of the holocaust with rants against Americans.
Wondering what book isn't shit.
Higher consumer prices, increased taxation (softening investment and demand for consumption), and lower purchasing power?
Out of good faith? Because you'd see a lot of sides leaving orbit from people who haven't read that crock of shit yet.
These both sound like nonsense. I'm guessing you are American, which means even if you aren't lazy, you probably have very little exposure to quality political theory (left or right wing). Austrian economics are popular in the US, for example, even though they are obscure in most of the world, and considered by other capitalists to be some of the worst capitalist economic theory.
go here and read the infographs.
lefty.booru.org
Maybe so, but these are primarily arguments against spontaneous order of market choices rather than the defense of command social investments through the government.
And what is going to be done about the high bourgeois decadent lifestyles of social fun promoted by the far left through intersectionalist victim culture? Surely, to call this the high point of the proletariat cause is retarded. The Alt Right and Alt Left just keep attracting these nasty chicken fuckers either absent in theory or promoting a Russian nazbol 5th column of being a totalitarian eastern resource prostitutes.
Yuri Bezmenov said they would be shot once idiots are done being useful as freedom is taken over by criminals and cynics. Sounds less like a superior ideology and more like a subversive trick to do exactly what the left claimed capitalists have done for the sake of state dictatorships.
Not even watching that horseshit. I fucking hate this shit. I'm not an economist, I'm a lawfag. You absolute drooling retards don't even know what you're complaining about. You can stick that Chicago bullshit up your ass. It's completely divorced from reality. If you look at a high R&D cost sector of the economy like pharma, it btfos every single anti-regulation argument. You absolutely need IP to get firms to actually produce new drugs. It's becoming more and more clear that you absolutely need antitrust regulations if you ever want drugs to be affordable.
You strip IP away and you have generics firms stealing shit from firms who make branded drugs, brandeds making pitiful returns on investment and muh innovation gets sucked down the fucking drain. No anti-trust regs and you get bullshit reverse settlements and drug prices raised artificially high.
Regulation is a loaded term anyway the way you right libs use it. It just means "law I don't like," if you actually understand half of anything about the law.
If you ever decide to leave your world of silly thought experiments and come into the real world of the 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧market🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 you'll see how capitalism is a shitty economic model absolutely filled with epicycles.
And fucking lmao at basic economics. That's like walking up to a cosmologist and telling them to learn basic gravity. Fucking end your life holy shit.e
t. class traitor
Patents are an artificial monopoly keeping the costs of drugs high by patent trolls. Evil corporations in big pharma like Valeant are buying up intellectual property and sitting on it to soak the profits while other firms do the actual R&D. Instead of restricting the market even further to fatten up profits at the poors expense, these patients need to expire. They are exploiting the poor, raising the costs, letting people die, and scamming insurance companies. Breaking one big pharma into many patent farms aren't going to end an artificially created monopoly.
Regulatory capture is when the biggest industries work together with the government to limit external competition. Which is why big corporate liberal democrats are all about regulation and hedgefund donors through their slushfund foundations.
All of this is bad for innovation, competition, consumers, and WORKERS forced to wagecuck in a system that social mobility has been artificially restricted to a CLASS in government.
Basic Economics is the title of his book, so… If you're going to denounce capitalism, could you help me figure out how real socialism works?
The fact is, proper R&D needs to be insulated from market forces, or else, it wouldn't be viable.
The solution is either:
1) Leaving it to public institutions or universities
2) Granting an artificial monopoly to whoever is carrying it
As for patent trolls, there is always someone to game the system for more profits.
That's because we have a system geared to accumulating capital instead of serving needs.
...
reading this from someone with an ancap flag is funny
Cockshot! He said cockshot looool it proves your cucks
The problem with communism is the assumption of human nature being malleable by society, instead of fixed by biology like niggers are dumb, lower class workers are dumb, higher class whites, Asians, kikes are smart etc. once you realize this capitalism makes sense.
imagine actually believing this
read a book, faggot
I read a lot of evolutionary psychology, sociobiology books. I also read old books pre-Enlightenment when fixed human nature was taken granted. What I don't read? Enlightenment shit from Locke to Marx. It is all wanking with no basis in reality.
Human nature doesn't exist. It is literally created by material conditions. Amerifats will someday understand this.
Didn't watch it either but he's right that anti-Trust is bullshit and largely a coping mechanism for the petit-bourgeois who want to get back to capitalism with a human face which they imagine is essentially its early 19th century state.
Anti-trust would actually raise prices as smaller firms step in an *attempt* to do what the large firms do far more efficiently. What's necessary now (as long as we are living under capitalism) is government regulation/nationalization of the existing oligopolies and not anti-Trust. My take.
I am Eurofag but 100% disagree. I believe in materialism. Materialism means we are animals. All animals are programmed by evolution.
Corporations abuse patent law, but if you want private R&D on the scale of something like the parma industry, then something like patent law is necessary. It is too expensive for them to justify it unless they can extract exclusive profits for years off of it. Otherwise the government needs to do R&D and generic companies compete to produce the drugs at low cost. But I doubt a yellow and black flag wants that.
Evolution and your environment you dipshit, you aren't genes in a vacuum. Why did dumb savages in the distant past lead their elderly out into the wilderness to die, or practice infanticide? Why is that abhorrent to us now? Does any of it have to do with the change in the conditions of our methods of social reproduction?
1. It is not abhorrent to me, cuck. Commies take liberalism for granted, this is so hilarious. Everything Romans did is for me perfectly normal an OK. Infanticide, slavery etc.
2. Our genes changed in the last 10K years.
Strong edge my friend, but maybe you should check the circumference of your skull. I said to US. Are you an us? Are you most people? Or are you a snivelling little western shit that wage cucks and takes a ridiculous pride in thinking "infanticide is very normal" in your demented mind palace?
Classic internet reactionary two-faced bullshit. Oh, infanticide and slavery were things the Romans did a thousand years ago, very normal stuff, but also we changed as a species in the last 10k years and that is why it isn't normal anymore. I'm just an aryan cro magnon that still has slavery and infanticide genes while everybody else evolved to no longer value those things. It's always like some variation of "the holocaust didn't happen, but I glorify the holocaust".
Do you see self-interest as a thing of the past?
Excuse me?
He's got my vote.
Self-interest isn't a critique of socialism, and it can drive a broad set of behaviors in similar conditions. Self-interest could drive a capitalist to be a social democrat who advocates for concession to workers on the basis of creating greater stability, but it can also drive a capitalist to self-aggrandize and consistently fight the interests of his employees in order to retain or expand his own power over his enterprise and accrue more value to himself through force. Self-interest could cause a wage cuck to hate social programs because he is convinced it wastes his money on useless niggers, or it could make him value them because he would rather just pay taxes and be able to walk into any doctor's office with his only worry being a co-pay. The way self-interest acts entirely depends on where hard constraints lie and your own private calculations of what actually is in your benefit. Hence, the conditions of social reproduction change how self-interest acts at large over time.
Who is us? Nignogs? I am a proud Eastern European.
Yes it is, fagette.
Any sort of centralized communism will have their own elites, which won't give a fuck about general well being, if that means they would have to sacrifice their car loicences, summer mansions or other privileges their goverment grants them. That happens because of self-interest.
Any sort of "workers own everything" type of socialism won't also work, because the workers are free to take slave/wage cucks, if no one enforces the laws banning them to do so. (Which would require centralization)
There is literally nothing more pathetic than a "proud" Eastern European these days. Also
loool
where does that pride come from? cleaning toilets and wiping old peoples assholes in western europe? or selling your women there into prostitution?
there's nothing to be proud of in a country that doesn't belong to you, in which you sell everything, including yourself
"pride" my ass, you're a fucking delusional cuck
Maybe he is proud because he isn't as brainwashed to be the perfect goyim cattle by the 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧elites🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧, welcoming of your own demise, accepting of every fun, as western yuropeans are?
Or maybe he's Hungarian and proud that he is going to be working 500 more hours without pay courtesy of based right wing nationalism?
it's really funny how you sell your ass to be pounded by western capital
but it's not gay because you owned dem libs and they're not flying rainbow flags as much around
epic :DDD
imagine being this drunk on idpol, you poor little fuck
Instead of being brainwashed to catter to the desire of the part of the elite that don't mind cucking foreigners of their labor, he's brainwashed to catter to the part of the elite that prefer cucking exlusively White people.
Great improvement
This is dumb recycled shit dude, I'm getting tired of it. You're arguing with me that elites will look out for their own self interest at the expense of all else, but you are making that argument in favor of a system that gives elites the legal right to unilaterally control vast amounts of capital which has led to their vice grip on the state. So what are you bitching to me about? The system that currently exists which allows people at the top to cuck everyone out of political and economic power for the sake of mansions and priviledges, or the bogeyman in your head that does the same thing which keeps you from even attempting to disempower those people, rather defend their right to do the things you are railing against right now? Of course this is also Zig Forums's position, but they say the financial 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧jew🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 has seized the state to undermine the white race, even though the white capital owners support all of the same international wars and globalization policies. Or sometimes you get weird reactionaries that say that the big difference is at least western capitalist elites give us Red Dead Redemption 2 and iPhones, even though they claim to think we live in some degenerate consumer culture that doesn't have "higher values".
Noooooooo those aren't gonna exist, we aren't gonna have money dude, hell no dude
Besides the aforementioned Penileprojectile meme, a possibility is a collectively planned economy, instead of a centrally planned one. Have teams of the representatives of the various unions and other class organizations hash it out, instead of having the same bureaucrats handling it forever. It sure would help a fuckton to avoid degeneration into authoritarianism.
Still, they would run into the same hurdle that central planning did: growing complexity of economic entailed an exponentially growing calculation problem. It definitely could be solved "by hand" up until the country was industrialized, but after then, it started getting out of hand. It's quite possible that a modern industrial economy can't be planned without cybernetics.
I think it is intuitive. Computers are just tools of advanced calculation and if we weren't using them we'd be using pencils and paper, or some kind of mechanical computation. They're a necessary tool for the project. According to the limits of our means of computation we are going to be limited in our ability to extend the economy to certain scales. It's arguable that these computational limits were a factor in what limited the final growth phases of the soviet union into a greater variety consumer goods production, yet it was still able to keep itself together generally and maintain certain standards because its ability to process economic activity for certain goals wasn't negated entirely. Of course, there are separate arguments about how their methods of organizing the economy became more revisionist over time and so less strictly the abolition of the law of value.
However, even if we were to find through practice that we could hit a limit in our present computational capacity to calculate and plan economic activity, the vast advancement of our means of computation suggests that we would be able to have a vastly more complex economy run in a more efficient manner than the USSR was capable of.
Only good answer in the thread
test