The Economics Thread

[harsh.ag]

Happy 200th birthday Karl Marx. Greatest politico-economic thinker in modern history. Imagine the YouTube videos he’d have had.

Let’s be honest, no **** will remember Froedman’s 100th birthday let alone his 200th. Bloke has the influence of a gnat.

Come at me, marketeers.

Here you go, the 10 point program from the Manifesto:

Declare someone a rebel and seize their property! Greatest politico-economic thinker in modern history indeed.

 

[GIMH]

Hard to think of many people who have done more harm to humankind.

 

[Burgey]

Did you work through the May Day holiday Corrin?

 

[Ausage]

Declare someone a rebel and seize their property! Greatest politico-economic thinker in modern history indeed.

Psh. That'd be evil and thus not real Communism.

 

[StephenZA]

Tax on pensioners proposed to heal inter-generational divide - BBC News

Can somebody explain this in any real comprehensible way to me, because I just don't get it?

 

[GIMH]

Did you work through the May Day holiday Corrin?

Do you use the Autobahns when you go to Germany?

 

[Spark]

Do you use the Autobahns when you go to Germany?

Nazism: famed for its unique and vociferous advocacy for road projects. The reason they got any power, tbh.

 

[GIMH]

Nazism: famed for its unique and vociferous advocacy for road projects. The reason they got any power, tbh.

Clearly my point as well

 

[Burgey]

Do you use the Autobahns when you go to Germany?

Have only been to Frankfurt transiting through. So, no.

 

[GIMH]

Have only been to Frankfurt transiting through. So, no.

I’ve only ever been to Berlin. Had a good pint on the wall

 

[smalishah84]

Hard to think of many people who have done more harm to peoplekind.

ftfy

 

[Ausage]

ftfy

I think you might be lost.

 

[smalishah84]

True, this should have been in the political correctness thread but I had to fit it wherever the opportunity first presented itself. Although gimh should have used mankind instead of humankind. He himself did a Trudeau there

 

[harsh.ag]

Here, you've all been enlightened by the greatest thinker of all time, a certain Connelly

https://medium.com/@ClaireConnelly/what-are-taxes-actually-for-e3853273b4bb

 

[Uppercut]

https://medium.com/@ClaireConnelly/what-are-taxes-actually-for-e3853273b4bb

What?

 

[TestMatch]

Here you go, the 10 point program from the Manifesto:

Declare someone a rebel and seize their property! Greatest politico-economic thinker in modern history indeed.

The idea that contemporary property norms is a kind of violence/coercion is actually something many philosophers believe, even the founding fathers of the US to different extents. The idea was that, as primitive accumulation, the centuries-long, and still ongoing process of dispossession, violently and forcibly pushed peasants from the land (cf The Enclosure Acts for example), you needed counter-action to reverse the theft.

Epitomizing such beliefs was the radical Alexander Berkman, who said centuries ago: "If I should steal something from you, you can call a policeman and have me arrested. The law will punish the thief, and the government will return to you the stolen property, if possible, because the law forbids stealing. It says that no one has a right to take anything from you without your consent. But your employer takes from you what you produce. The wealth produced by labor is taken by the capitalists and kept by them as their property. [...] The law says that your employer does not steal anything from you, because it is done with your consent. You have agreed to work for your boss for certain pay, he to have all that you produce. But did you really consent? When the highwayman holds his gun to your head, you turn your valuables over to him. You ‘consent’ all right, but you do so because you cannot help yourself, because you are compelled by violence. Are you not compelled to work for an employer? Your need compels you, just as the highwayman’s gun. You must live. You must eat. But the factories, land, machinery, and tools belong to the employing class, so you must hire yourself out in order to work and live. In this way the whole working class is compelled to work for the capitalist class. The law says it is a ‘free agreement’. Just as well might the highwayman say that you ‘agreed’ to give up your valuables. The only difference is that the highwayman’s way is called stealing and robbery, and is forbidden by law. While the capitalist way is called business, industry, profit making, and is protected by law. But whether it is done in the highwayman’s way or in the capitalist way, you know that you are robbed. The whole capitalist system rests on such robbery. The whole system of law and government upholds and justifies this robbery."

A quote from political scientist C.B. Macpherson (from "Elegant Tombstones: A Note on Freedom") echoes this: "It is believed that 'individuals are effectively free to enter or not to enter into any particular exchange', and it is held that with this proviso 'every transaction is strictly voluntary'. A moment's thought will show that this is not so. The proviso that is required to make every transaction strictly voluntary is not freedom not to enter into any particular exchange, but freedom not to enter into any exchange at all. This, and only this, was the proviso that proved the simple model to be voluntary and non-coercive; and nothing less than this would provide the complex model to be voluntary and non-coercive."

And in a challenge to Milton Friedman he says: “What distinguishes the capitalist economy from the simple exchange economy is the separation of labor and capital, that is, the existence of a labor force without its own sufficient capital and therefore without a choice as to whether to put its labor in the market or not. Professor Friedman would agree that where there is no choice there is coercion. His attempted demonstration that capitalism coordinates without coercion therefore fails.”

Philosopher Jim Farmelant levels a similar charge at Friedman: “Friedman had conceded that under a market economy, coercion does exist in cases where monopolies exist because in such situations people may be lacking in choices concerning where they can purchase goods or services. But if that is the case, then how much more it must be the case that coercion does exist when we have an economy founded upon having a relatively small fraction of the population owning most capital, with the majority of people having little choice but to sell their labor to the owners of capital. In other words, under capitalism, the situation is very different from the hypothetical simple exchange economy. There, people can survive without having to enter into any exchanges, whereas, under capitalism people do have to enter into exchanges in the labor market with capitalists, if they wish to survive.”

Many thinkers and economists who we'd today think of as "right wing" or “establishment”, agreed with this to varying degrees. For example here's Thomas Paine, one of the founding fathers of the United States...

"[We shall] create a national fund as a compensation, in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance by the introduction of the system of landed property."

And Adam Smith...

"Every savage has the full enjoyment of the fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords. But the labour and time of the poor in civilized countries is sacrificed to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his capital. The poor labourer has all the inconveniences to struggle with. Thus he who supports the whole frame of society and furnishes the means of the convenience and ease of all the rest is himself possessed of a very small share and is buried in obscurity. He bears on his shoulders the whole of mankind, and unable to sustain the weight of it is thrust down into the lowest parts of the earth from whence he supports the rest."

And Keynes...

"… like other victims of economic transition in past times, workers are to be offered the choice between starvation and submission, the fruits of their submission to accrue to the benefit of other classes."

Meanwhile Friedman himself explicitly proposed a "negative income tax" - a kind of UBI which scales inversely with earnings - for many reasons, one of which was on the grounds that it offered "freedom from markets" and the ability to opt out of market relations.

A right wing economist like Friedrich Hayek – who proposed similar policies (a monthly payment of about 850 dollars to each citizen) - likewise believed such policies were necessary to "guarantee freedom" as, quote, "freedom must mean freedom from coercion by the arbitrary will of others" ("Constitution of Liberty", 1960). To quote political philosopher Matt Zwolinski, "Hayek thought coercion can only be minimized, not eliminated, and the coercion of some individuals by others can often be held in check only by the use of coercion itself. A basic income gives people an option to exit the labor market, and the existence of that option allows them to escape subjection to the will of others. It enables them to say “no” to proposals that only extreme desperation would ever drive them to accept. It allows them to govern their lives according to their own plans, their own goals, and their own desires. It enables them to be free."

 

[harsh.ag]

That's fine, even though I disagree with some of the content of the quotes above. But anyone who thinks those things and comes up with "give government the power to declare someone a rebel and seize their property" was never a good thinker. And that's what all this is about.

Communism is not about social welfare programs, as much as some would like others to believe.

 

[Victor Ian]

So, abuse of power aside, would you agree that we should seize property of rebels - similar to seizing proceeds of crime, etc - presuming there is no abuse of power. Couldn't the abuse be solved by a well formed legal criteria that separates government from judgement?
I'm not sure where I stand but a number of those points seem quite reasonable. I've never been sold on capitalism because it requires perfection to be fair and efficient and that perfection will never exist?
Just a drive by question. I don't get the time to discuss these ideas on here, though avidly read to understand more.

 

[Victor Ian]

Ignore me. You didn't say what I originally interpreted.

 

[Ikki]

The idea that contemporary property norms is a kind of violence/coercion is actually something many philosophers believe, even the founding fathers of the US to different extents. The idea was that, as primitive accumulation, the centuries-long, and still ongoing process of dispossession, violently and forcibly pushed peasants from the land (cf The Enclosure Acts for example), you needed counter-action to reverse the theft.

Epitomizing such beliefs was the radical Alexander Berkman, who said centuries ago: "If I should steal something from you, you can call a policeman and have me arrested. The law will punish the thief, and the government will return to you the stolen property, if possible, because the law forbids stealing. It says that no one has a right to take anything from you without your consent. But your employer takes from you what you produce. The wealth produced by labor is taken by the capitalists and kept by them as their property. [...] The law says that your employer does not steal anything from you, because it is done with your consent. You have agreed to work for your boss for certain pay, he to have all that you produce. But did you really consent? When the highwayman holds his gun to your head, you turn your valuables over to him. You ‘consent’ all right, but you do so because you cannot help yourself, because you are compelled by violence. Are you not compelled to work for an employer? Your need compels you, just as the highwayman’s gun. You must live. You must eat. But the factories, land, machinery, and tools belong to the employing class, so you must hire yourself out in order to work and live. In this way the whole working class is compelled to work for the capitalist class. The law says it is a ‘free agreement’. Just as well might the highwayman say that you ‘agreed’ to give up your valuables. The only difference is that the highwayman’s way is called stealing and robbery, and is forbidden by law. While the capitalist way is called business, industry, profit making, and is protected by law. But whether it is done in the highwayman’s way or in the capitalist way, you know that you are robbed. The whole capitalist system rests on such robbery. The whole system of law and government upholds and justifies this robbery."

A quote from political scientist C.B. Macpherson (from "Elegant Tombstones: A Note on Freedom") echoes this: "It is believed that 'individuals are effectively free to enter or not to enter into any particular exchange', and it is held that with this proviso 'every transaction is strictly voluntary'. A moment's thought will show that this is not so. The proviso that is required to make every transaction strictly voluntary is not freedom not to enter into any particular exchange, but freedom not to enter into any exchange at all. This, and only this, was the proviso that proved the simple model to be voluntary and non-coercive; and nothing less than this would provide the complex model to be voluntary and non-coercive."

And in a challenge to Milton Friedman he says: “What distinguishes the capitalist economy from the simple exchange economy is the separation of labor and capital, that is, the existence of a labor force without its own sufficient capital and therefore without a choice as to whether to put its labor in the market or not. Professor Friedman would agree that where there is no choice there is coercion. His attempted demonstration that capitalism coordinates without coercion therefore fails.”

Philosopher Jim Farmelant levels a similar charge at Friedman: “Friedman had conceded that under a market economy, coercion does exist in cases where monopolies exist because in such situations people may be lacking in choices concerning where they can purchase goods or services. But if that is the case, then how much more it must be the case that coercion does exist when we have an economy founded upon having a relatively small fraction of the population owning most capital, with the majority of people having little choice but to sell their labor to the owners of capital. In other words, under capitalism, the situation is very different from the hypothetical simple exchange economy. There, people can survive without having to enter into any exchanges, whereas, under capitalism people do have to enter into exchanges in the labor market with capitalists, if they wish to survive.”

Many thinkers and economists who we'd today think of as "right wing" or “establishment”, agreed with this to varying degrees. For example here's Thomas Paine, one of the founding fathers of the United States...

"[We shall] create a national fund as a compensation, in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance by the introduction of the system of landed property."

And Adam Smith...

"Every savage has the full enjoyment of the fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords. But the labour and time of the poor in civilized countries is sacrificed to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his capital. The poor labourer has all the inconveniences to struggle with. Thus he who supports the whole frame of society and furnishes the means of the convenience and ease of all the rest is himself possessed of a very small share and is buried in obscurity. He bears on his shoulders the whole of mankind, and unable to sustain the weight of it is thrust down into the lowest parts of the earth from whence he supports the rest."

And Keynes...

"… like other victims of economic transition in past times, workers are to be offered the choice between starvation and submission, the fruits of their submission to accrue to the benefit of other classes."

Meanwhile Friedman himself explicitly proposed a "negative income tax" - a kind of UBI which scales inversely with earnings - for many reasons, one of which was on the grounds that it offered "freedom from markets" and the ability to opt out of market relations.

A right wing economist like Friedrich Hayek – who proposed similar policies (a monthly payment of about 850 dollars to each citizen) - likewise believed such policies were necessary to "guarantee freedom" as, quote, "freedom must mean freedom from coercion by the arbitrary will of others" ("Constitution of Liberty", 1960). To quote political philosopher Matt Zwolinski, "Hayek thought coercion can only be minimized, not eliminated, and the coercion of some individuals by others can often be held in check only by the use of coercion itself. A basic income gives people an option to exit the labor market, and the existence of that option allows them to escape subjection to the will of others. It enables them to say “no” to proposals that only extreme desperation would ever drive them to accept. It allows them to govern their lives according to their own plans, their own goals, and their own desires. It enables them to be free."

This is one of those posts where the Billy Madison meme comes to mind:

You have butchered whole ideologies, and their proponents, by cherry-picking quotes in contextless fashion. What more, your post is just a full copy-paste of a Marxism reddit post. We've long since debated these topics but suffice to say: anybody who ascribes to marxism in this day and age is an economic illiterate and to fall for the parlour-trick arguments of "well, if you don't have a choice it's coercion" is also ignorant to what the likes of Friedman, Hayek and Smith were talking about. It's actually embarrassing to see people have liked this post but I'm not surprised by who've liked it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Marxism/comments/94371l/some_quotes_by_establishment_figures_and_right/