I was mildly critiquing the accuracy.
>>>Locally-owned businesses. That's socialism. There is definitely nothing in the definition of socialism that says everything is locally-owned. Moreover, that can be a way to end up with things like Redlining and other institutional racial issues.
>>>There is no value without labor. The great thing Marx did was show that everything could be converted to a value measured by labor. But, economists afterwards showed that once you have that conversion, you can do it literally with anything. We could have a system based on the number of bumblebees required to build a house. That is a normative judgement that labor is somehow special.
Now, our current implementation of Capitalism is clearly wreaking havoc on our environment. But it has brought the standard of living up across the entire world past a Malthusian cycle of more food means more people, means they eat the food, and we have starvation.
The same can be said for current implementations of Communism all across the globe.
Lastly, cooperatives may be a great solution for a lot of manufacturing and housing challenges. And when you get to the scale of a country, a co-op is just a government, and a capitalistic democracy feels a lot more like a co-op than a dictatorship or authoritarianism even with all its pitfalls. A populous who then really starts to demand through votes that we change to improve the blight of our fellow humans seems an even better place to live, if we can just get there.
>> There is definitely nothing in the definition of socialism that says everything is locally-owned. Moreover, that can be a way to end up with things like Redlining and other institutional racial issues.
I read the OPs post as an example of propoganda (mega corp - capitalism, small company - socialism) not reality.
In reality it's almost the opposite, it's bootstrap capitalism for the little guys, and "socialism" and government handouts for the ultra wealthy. (I put socialism in quotes because this term is extremely commonly misused.)
It's an oversimplification to highlight the main point: workers' relationship to the means of production. In capitalism, capital owners own the means of production. In socialism, the workers own the means of production.
IME most Americans not only don't know what socialism is (despite being opposed to it), they don't know what capitalism is either (despite supporting it).
> Now, our current implementation of Capitalism is clearly wreaking havoc on our environment.
It's doing an awful lot more than that. It's pillaging the Global South. It's impoverishing us under the massive weight of housing, medical and student debt. And it's quite literally killing people. People decry the failures of the USSR, for example, but 9 million people die of starvation every year. Why isn't this attributed as a failure of capitalism in the same way?
Communist countries are the most polluted ones.
Free markets, on the other hand, work even if they aren't perfect. The more free they are, the better they work.
Couldn't it just be argued that free market extremism is as much folly as a pro-central planning position?
The trouble with calling free markets folly is they are enormously successful, in every place and time where they have been tried. The trouble with central economic planning is it always does badly.
BTW, one of the functions of government in a free market is to regulate the externalities - costs of doing business that are not borne by the business. Pollution is the most obvious one of those externalities, so calling a polluting business "extreme free market" is incorrect.
> Endorsing free markets does not have to equate with an unquestioning obsession, bordering on fetishistic, with liberty.
Question it all you like!
You shouldn't have a problem demonstrating this then? It's easy to enumerate all failed central planned economies, there really never was one that succeeded. Why don't you give an example of country that failed miserable with millions of deaths because of too much free markets.
The beauty of capitalism is that it works (or seems to work for some people, for the time being) by externalizing its true costs to other countries, other social strata -- and indeed far into the future.
Though mortality rates seem not to have risen (and may in fact declined) in the U.S. during the peak depression years (1930-1933) -- as a global phenomenon, the collapse of a system based on "too much free markets" is generally seen as one of the primary drivers of WW2, so we would have to attribute some share of its 70-85 million fatalities this market-driven collapse as well.
And not just by accident. There's also the fact that "free market" interests and Western financial support were key to Hitler and Mussolini's rise to power in the first place, as the former saw the latter as a perhaps unsavory but ultimately necessary bulwark against the rising spectre of a global socialist movement (whether on the Bolshevik model or otherwise).
Plus the whole European colonial project in Asia, Africa and the Americas, and the several hundred million deaths that it brought to the table. Though to be fair, this wasn't so much a matter of any collapse of the free market system of the time -- but rather of it working exactly as it was intended, from the very start.
And of course now we're headed for a much larger disaster with likely at least as many hundred millions of deaths looming on the horizon -- in the form of climate change and its attendant disruptions, also very much a direct result of "too much free markets".
So there you go.
Are there any sustainable socialist economies by any metric?
> European colonial project
Colonialism is not free market.
> also very much a direct result of "too much free markets"
Again, communist countries are the most polluted ones. The reason is straightforward - their economies produced so little, they couldn't afford environmental protection costs.
China has hit it out of the park, I think it's quite fair to say. (Could easily name a whole bunch more, but gotta keep this short. It's also a moot subject, per my last item below).
Colonialism is not free market.
That's the thing -- "free market" societies have never really been free, once externalities are accounted for. But the multi-century European colonial project was no mere externality. Its genesis, ideology and economics were inseparable from the development of Western-style capitalism as we know it.
Again, communist countries are the most polluted ones. The reason is straightforward - their economies produced so little, they couldn't afford environmental protection costs.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. But this also gets into a much more important topic we've been leaving out: there's no dichotomy between "socialism" and "capitalism" -- and never was. Nearly every modern, large-scale economy has been a working hybrid of both systems.
Even the good ole' USA.
> "free market" societies have never really been free
Of course. But the free'er they are, the better they work.
> has been a working hybrid of both systems
The socialist part flounders along, supported by taxes on the free market. The bigger the socialist part, the worse the economy as a whole performs.
We weren't talking about communism, but rather socialism. Also, its markets are very far from free.
That's all I have time for. Good luck.
It seems to work for any country that embraced free market ideas the same way socialist policies predictably don't work in any country that tried them.
You are seriously claiming WW2, colonialism and climate change is a direct consequence of people having too much choice? If only Germany had a strong dictator preventing people to be too free to choose, oh wait,...
The vast majority of folks have comparatively few meaningful choices available to them. About things like Android vs. iPhone, sure. But about things that actually matter -- like the fact that they have to work so hard all their lives; and that they probably have to drive a car to get there; that the oceans are filling up with microplastics, and their drinking water with something called PFAS that very few people had even heard of until very recently, and so on -- not all that much.
What I mean is that these bad things are the result of centuries of the elites of these partially "free" societies having too many choices available to them.
Or more specifically: of not having to account for the true costs of their choices.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2022/03/22/1087654279/how...
https://www.britannica.com/place/Russia/Post-Soviet-Russia
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/alcohol-blamed-ha...
An infestation of pyramid schemes (also happened in post-communist Albania, too, leading to civil war).
is this a serious statement?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value
As wikipedia says, "modern mainstream economics rejects the LTV" (for very good reasons). It leads to some pretty obvious absurdities if you take it seriously. For example, 10,000 people digging holes should be more "valuable" than one guy designing a microchip, because hey! The holes take more labor.
You may choose to disagree. Just as modern economists disagree with the LTV.
Modern economists haven't refuted this, and in fact many parrot it, and anyone saying they have rejected the idea is misinformed. See for instance https://bnarchives.yorku.ca/308/2/20101200_cockshott_nitzan_...
The LTV absolutely accounts for demand (what capitalists call "value") and in fact requires it for its description of how capitalism operates. It's really just saying there are two forms of value: aggregate demand and aggregate production costs, with competition driving prices down to production costs. If you don't agree with that, I don't really know how else to help because it's kind of a universal truth in a mass production market economy.
Economy is not a natural or exact science. There is a mainstream. But this does not mean that there is no valid inquiries and theories outside mainstream.
You are the one defending the LTV, not me. If value = labor, but not when that would be silly, it's a bit like saying F = ma, but not when that would be silly. No serious scientist would accept this formulation. You would be laughed out the room.
After millions of deaths, environment devastation, and political repression, Marxism deserves to be laughed out of the room as well. I hope it will be, some day.
I never said anything about "use the theory, except when its silly". What was silly was the example because of the lack of understanding of the parent comment: LTV does not work like described by that comment. You can not even properly criticize something if you do not understand it.
The moralist excuse to forbid or negate certain knowledge is also silly. Depending on where you live, you probably post these comments in a society built (and perhaps even mantained) by an even larger kill count, but I never will use this as a way to refuse or negate discussion or knowledge.
I've already presented several scenarios where a different amount of labor did not produce a different amount of value. Your response has just been that "socially necessary labor" is different than "labor." But this is nonsense since we don't have any authority to tell us what is "socially necessary" and what is not. Indeed, we have many examples of socialist governments deciding that it's not "socially necessary" for certain groups of people to eat at all -- the Holodomor in Ukraine, or der Hungerplan in Nazi Germany.
Your examples are exactly as expected by LTV. LTV agrees that they do not produce different exchange values. The problem is that you are just ignoring what the LTV says, ignoring the theory definitions and is coming with your own ideas of what you think it says. And when I try to give you what the theory says, you just say that it is nonsense, saying more things that confirm that you have no idea about what you are talking:
> But this is nonsense since we don't have any authority to tell us what is "socially necessary" and what is not.
You do not need the authority. The theory describes the functioning of free markets, and capitalism running without hindrances. But taking into account the material reality that you need nature + labor to socially produce things and that in one side you have production, at the other side you have consumption and these things need to be balanced.
Pro tip: LTV was the mainstream of economical theories during the era when Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Marx, and all other classical economists published their contributions. All them agreed with LTV. Do you really think that you can refute it using so silly examples? In fact, there are several criticisms and known paradoxes that applies to older forms of LTV, but your attacks are missing even these older and more naive forms. Which is expected: you cannot formulate proper criticism for things that you do not fully understand and did not study.
That's not what Marxism says at all.
Nevermind Marx accounted for demand and markets when talking about cost of labor, but people love to strawman.
It would be more accurate to say "modern mainstream economists". To say "economics" here is a real failure on Wikipedia's moderation. Because what they're actually talking about, is the Austrian School of Economics [1]:
> The Austrian school is a heterodox[1][2][3] school of economic thought that advocates strict adherence to methodological individualism,
"Individualism" is the key part here because it betrays the intent, which is to disempower people from acting collectively, such as by forming unions. This is a key tenet of classical liberalism so an appeal to authority like "modern mainstream economics" we're really just saying "neoliberalism".
Neoliberalism isn't a neutral account or critique of capitalism. It wholly embraces capitalism as a solution to all problems. Neoliberalism can pretty much be summed up as weaker/smaller government (because it hurts profits) and indivudalism (because collective action hurts profits).
> 10,000 people digging holes should be more "valuable" than one guy designing a microchip
That's an asinine example. I mean what hole are they digging? If it's the Panama Canal, that's pretty valuable. Also, the example of one person designing a chip goes to the heart of the problem that LTV addressses. What does that design do? Well, nothing. It only has value if you make something with it you can sell (or you sell it to someone who does). You want to fab it? Well, TSMC involves a lot of labor. ASML involves a lot of labor. The materials required require a lot of labor.
Plus there's the issue that the chip design itself is intellectual property, which itself is an enclosure (in the capitalist sense).
Everything we as a society is so fundamentally interconnected that it's arbitrary and selective to attribute the value created to a tiny few. And it's done for the gain of the few at the expense of the many.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_school_of_economics
That's an asinine example. I mean what hole are they digging? If it's
the Panama Canal, that's pretty valuable.
“You don’t understand, Mr. Friedman, this canal is a jobs program to provide work for as many men as possible.”
“Oh, I see. I thought you were trying to build a canal. If you really want to create jobs, then by all means give these men spoons, not shovels.”
I am a capitalist and my money goes to pay labor to create a thing that I sell in a market. The workers create thing in the production process. I have captured a portion of the labor's true value based on the market, bringing me profit - what Marx called "surplus value."
I turn around and reinvest that profit into another business that brings me more profit. Rinse and repeat, forever.
But that profit is nothing but a portion of the labor's true value as reflected in the market price, and therefore the labor created the value. The market did not create the value. The market decided on a price to pay for the value created by the labor.
Much like "machines all the way down", value is labor all the way down.
Related: when Marxism was actually implemented, they had big problems with not building the right things, and building the things they did build poorly. For example a factory was assigned the task of building N pounds of nails a day, so they just built one giant nail that weighed N pounds (and was totally useless) rather than buliding what was needed. Because it turns out, management is actually needed and useful.
[And so are price signals, but let's take baby steps here!]
this is so wrong. management is labor, too.
In the Marxist view, the work just inherently "happens" (like water flowing down a stream) and capitalists can only be like a water wheel "capturing the value" that's flowing past. Of course, this is bullshit, but that is the mentality.
While this is generally true, it's also not the entire equation. For example, there's no gain without risk.
- When I work for someone else, I am offloading some of the risk to that person/owner. When someone starts a company and hires other people... if the company goes belly up, the founder loses their investment; the workers find another job.
- When I rent from someone else, I am offloading the risk of owning a property to someone else. If I get a job across the country, I don't need to sell my house at a loss to move.
None of this justifies people making insane amounts of money while others are starving. But neither should the worker expect to reap all the benefit unless their also willing to take all the risk.
my shelter not being destroyed is extremely more important to me and my life than my landlord who has insurance for such things, especially in a place with a housing vacancy less than 1% (aka very very hard to find housing). if i leave, they will have no problem finding a tenant to take my place. any repairs and maintenance are essentially paid for by my rent. they raised property taxes? no problem, just raise rent...
from my POV, seems like a low risk investment to be a landlord.
The landlord has the risks that the renter doesn't (that a homeowner does); which is risk offloaded from the renter to the landlord. The landlord then has the risks of the tenant being a bad player, which can be extremely financially risky (worse than being fired from your job).
> from my POV, seems like a low risk investment to be a landlord
Your point of view is extremely far from the truth. Especially for landlords that have one or a few places they rent out, it can be extremely risky. Everything from tenants just deciding not to pay (and taking a year+ to evict) to a Pacific Heights situation, where the place is destroyed with no real recourse. Or, on the lower end, tenants just leaving the place in bad shape, with bugs/mice/whatever; that itself can cost tends of thousands of dollars to recover from.
this puts my life in a very tenuous place (especially bc i don't have full-time employment, took an actual risk to make a living on my own). i don't think the landlord has that risk.
So does the bank, and the state that (more often than not) subsidised said investment through diverse vehicles. If the bank goes belly up, we've seen what happens, we collectively contribute to save them... because we're collectively sharing all the risk of investment in our financialized economies.
I agree that some people don't want risk and others do, but as soon as you start sharing ownership that dichotomy simply disappears.
In 2008 I believe bailouts did go to companies to keep them afloat (and thus helped shareholders). However, TARP returned a small profit for the government, so it didn't end up being a gift of free money overall imo. (reasonable people can say that the bailouts were excessive and introduced moral hazard for sure).
Workers generally risk their lives or simply injury. Owners "risk" capital. I put that in quotes because our government is typically set up to rescue failing businesses and by that I mean bailing out the owners. If the business fails, the owner simply has less money or they have to become a worker.
So who is really taking a risk here?
> When I rent from someone else, I am offloading the risk of owning a property to someone else.
We shouldn't treat housing as an investment vehicle. It is shelter and necessary to live. Every level of government is subordinate to the cause of increasing property prices as society increasingly views housing as a vehicle to build generational wealth.
The majority of housing in vienna is state-owned (so-called "social housing"). Any kind of state housing has been successfuly propagandized as a "slum" ("project") but there's no need for that to happen. The UK, prior to Thatcher coming along and dismantling the whole thing, almost completely got rid of landlords simply by being the buyer of last resort for owners that wante dto sell.
> None of this justifies people making insane amounts of money while others are starving
Our economic system is predicated on withholding basic needs for profit.
To withold basic needs for profit, you need to be able to provide basic needs in the first place.
All of the alternatives I know of can't even reach that point.
Neither full-collectivism nor full-capitalism are the final answer.
Doesn't detract from your overall point though, which is quite valid.
Saying "owner simply has less money" can have many implications on their life. If they choose to put money in a company rather than have a bigger apartment/TV/car/whatever, I find it fair for that to be rewarded a bit.
I think it is disingenuous to think "basic needs" is simple to define, considering that there is no cheap and free energy source (and other resources). For someone living in a warm climate, the basic need for heating in north of Europe will look like a waste.
My opinion is that tax systems are completely outdated and they should use more "asymptotic/exponential/complex formulas". Sure a tax of x % on profit worked 100 years ago when most people were "closer" but with today's growth (of many things), you get too much concentration. But of course that would imply that people understand both tax and math, so most will not demand it.
> Our economic system is predicated on withholding basic needs for profit.
An economic system based on "to each according to his need" has been tried many times. It fails to deliver.
Have there been any attempts since the rise of the smartphone and the Internet? I'm only aware of attempts that predate them and those two things have changed capitalistic societies dramatically, for better or worse.
I also collaborate with people all over the world. That simply wasn't possible in the 1980s. I'd mail floppy disks internationally, and would use the fax machine for communication (at a dollar a page!).
Bootstrapped companies also come with risks to the founder's own capital and credit risk if loans are taken and the business fails to generate revenue to service them.
The fact that you consider "losing everything you've saved up for your entire life, plus what you've borrowed, and destroyed your ability to borrow more" as "simply" is... mind boggling to me. I would rather work for someone else than risk losing everything by starting my own business (plus I prefer to develop software rather than run a business); that risk is _way_ beyond what I'm comfortable with.
Workers take risk not only of the financial kind (choosing to take a job at company A instead of B is a bet), as well as physical risk most times.
If we believe shareholder of a oil company is taking more risk than the worker in a platform, we value capital more than labour.
If we want to play the "risk grants ownership" game, then we have to be honest: at some point, the risk of the initial investment is paid off, and the risk the employees take on collectively matches or exceeds the risk of the investors. If we're being logically consistent, ownership would transfer as these risk pools shift. But we're not consistent, and our system doesn't value risk, it values capital.
Feudalism was in some ways a bit kinder, because part of the basic arrangement was the expectation that the nobles would protect the peasantry (for pragmatic that's-where-the-food-and-supplies-come-from reasons, not ethical ones). Capitalism has no such expectations or incentives.
Plausible.
But there is very little value without tools. In fact, one could argue that all material progress has been in the form of better and better tools. One person with a combine beats 100 people with sickles.
Those tools are necessary for almost all of the value that labor produces.
So if we want those tools, in the real world we need to pay the producer of those tools. (Or make them ourselves, which is possible, but runs into division-of-labor issues.) The people who manufacture combines aren't a charity; they want to receive the value of their work too.
And unless the farmer (or custom cutter) has the money to buy the combine, then there's a third party in the situation - the capitalist, the person who provides the money to buy the tools that will give the increased productivity. That person usually isn't a charity, either. They need to get some return on their money.
But the place where I at least partly agree is this: The worker who knows how to use the tools is deserves at least part of the value provided by using the tool. The tool-maker deserves part of the value; the capitalist deserves part of the value; and the worker also deserves part of the value. (If you don't like the word "deserves", well, without all three parties, the value isn't produced, and none of the three are charities, so if we want the value, we need to give them part of the returns.)
And currently, you can make a very solid case that the worker is getting the short end of the stick. I can't buy "the worker deserves it all". No, the worker does not. But I can agree that workers deserve more than they're getting.
(In the cases where the workers either make their own tools or have the money to buy them, this argument breaks down. But in an industrialized society, that seems to be the exception, not the rule.)
Did those tools magically come into existence? Or were they made? Who made them? More workers. Where did the materials come from? More workers.
The point here is that everything we as a society do is so fundamentally interconnected that thousands of people contributed to pulling gold out of a mine, for example, both directly and through the tools that were created to make it possible then why are we concentrating the proceeds of this enterprise onto the capital owner who got a lease from the government (with the threat of violence backing it) just because they wrote a check to fund the operation?
> ... there's a third party in the situation
Yes, more products of labor.
> I can't buy "the worker deserves it all"
I don't believe you intended it this way but it reads as a false dichotomy.
I don't expect radical change in our economic system. I would be happy to see more cooperatives for housing and manufacturing (like Mondragon). This requires some class consciousness and collective action.
So much of our modern society deifies hyper-individualism. You ever wonder why that is? It's sold as "freedom" but it's really to manipulate you because there's a massive power imbalance between your employer and you. If you withhold work, most likely that employer will be fine. If that employer withholds work, you might end up homeless. The only way to counter that power imbalance is with collective action.
Modern political discourse is dominated by manufactured culture war issues. This isn't new. Post-Civil War there was fear in the South of emancipated slaves and poor white people uniting [1].
To be absolutely clear, I'm not accusing you of racism or similar. My point is to show how this is manufactured to divide workers. Even the idea of the "middle class" is intentionally divisive. Why do the interests of a white-collar (middle class) worker differ from a blue-collar (lower class) worker? Why are we making that distinction?
[1]: https://bittersoutherner.com/from-the-southern-perspective/m...
An interesting example of this in an article published yesterday (a housing/renovation co-op operating in Baltimore).
https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/sep/03/wat...
Yet wine is higher valued than grape juice.
Value can clearly exist without labor.
Turning commodity grape juice into commodity wine requires no appreciable extra labor compared to the required labor to prevent fermentation.
The grape juice vs. wine is a rather classic counterexample, but it's hardly difficult to come up with any number of other examples of value absent labor.
True, but there is also no value without investment and risk. Marx's failure was ignoring the other two ingredients.
Marxism is building a road with hundreds of laborers with shovels. Capitalism is one guy with a bulldozer.
P.S. Cuba has no riches to steal.
The attempts at implementing Marxism all ended in misery and famine. What more would anyone need to know about it?
BTW, a capitalist investing money also entails risk. How it works is the more risk, the more potential reward. Does Marx account for risk? I ask that because the Marxists I hear never mention the essential role risk plays, they usually just assume there is no risk.
I read historical accounts about the Kennedy assassination, but don't waste my time on the conspiracy theory books. Nor do I bother with treatises on ancient aliens or UFOs. Or books on astrology, kirlian photography, ESP, flat earth, religions dogma, etc.
If Marxism worked, I'd be more interested in it. But it doesn't, so why bother?
Why should I waste time on a theory that has been proven false every time it was tried?
It's up to you to justify it, not me.
What amazes me is the people who desperately cling to Marxism despite its 100% failure rate. How can they make a career studying it and never notice its history?
Do you notice that nobody has been able to point to a Marxist success story, after what, 150 years of trying?
BTW, the fundamental flaw of Marxism is it fails to understand basic human nature - that people are selfish. You are selfish, I am selfish, everybody is. Marxism requires rejection of selfishness. This will never work. You cannot cajole it out of people, educate it out, indoctrinate it out, or shoot it out of them. They'll still act selfishly.
Free markets work because it creates a framework where selfishness benefits others.
Maybe if you bothered to try to understand the perpetual machine that everyone’s bought into then you wouldn’t be so amazed by people buying into it all of the time
In what universe does water by the river cost the same as water in the middle of the Saharra desert? A plant worth the same whether it is local or highly exotic? Where buying lumber at $300 a cord to burn fair, but buying it for the same $300 a cord but operating a warehouse selling it for as so much as $301 a cord retroactively somehow robbing the lumberjack? The madhouse world of surplus-labor-value! Boy, if Lewis Carroll had a field day with imaginary numbers then he missed truly golden opportunities of exploring an utterly mental system which demands fixed globally perfect valuations to avoid exploitation!
This was recognized by everyone from Karl Marx to Abraham Lincoln to Adam Smith. Smith even conceded that profit was impossible if workers retain their surplus value, which is exactly the point.
I bring this up because that's what capitalism is: draining the surplus labor value from workers to the capital-owning class. In feudalism, the artistocracy and th emonarchy extracted that value. Jeff Bezos is the new king.
Why do I mention this? Because it wasn't that long ago that this view was universally accepted. The Red Scare post-WW2 spread a lot of damaging propaganda that has led ordinary people to fight for the ultra-rich to have even more money, to their own detriment.
Walmart killing all your local businesses then leaving, leaving you in a food desert with a Family Dollar store maybe. That's capitalism. Locally-owned businesses. That's socialism. Monsanto agribusiness? Capitalism. Family-owned farms? Socialism.
Something like Mondragon shows that large-scale cooperatives can work. And the reason why these sorts of things aren't more prevalent is that laws are passed to make them difficult to set up or outright illegal. Many US states outlaw municipal broadband, for example.
And any country in the last 70 years that even thinks about nationalizing resource extraction finds itself having a coup that nearly always has the CIA's fingerprints over it.
Or we simply starve them to death under the sanitized euphemism of "economic sanctions" (eg Cuba, Iraq, Venezuela). I really want people to understand that we're not doing this for any moral reason. We're doing it at the behest of Western companies who would prefer to steal the riches of these countries.
Co-operatives can go a lot further than manufacturing too. It can be a solution for housing. Housing cooperatives cut out landlords, who are rent-seeking both literally and figuratively.