What I am arguing is the Marxist POV, which is certified through historical trends. Even before land had been monopolized, the bourgeoisie quickly became dominant financially. You’re confusing the class character of workers and owners as individual judgements and not as a subsection of society with definite relations, a worker can have some savings and an owner can do some labor, but that’s not the point of class analysis. If you aren’t going to actually engage with the Marxist critique, why are you acting as though you know what the Marxist critique is? It’s condescending.
Same with the wild assumptions of workers being capable of saving at the same rate as Capitalists, and the idea that Capitalists turn profits from their own labor, and not through paying workers less than the value they create. You haven’t once engaged with that fundamental critique from the Socialist camp, that Capitalists must pay workers less than the Value they create in order to turn a profit. They can’t be similar jobs, because they have entirely different social relations.
The next part, where you repeat the idea that there can be such thing as “a mix of Socialism and Capitalism,” fundamentally avoids the arguments at hand. Socialism and Capitalism are terms for the entire system, by analyzing which aspect of society is primary, public or private ownership. Private ownership is not capitalism, and public ownership is not Socialism. Further, these safety nets came about because of strong revolutionary pressure, not democratic institutions. These Safety Nets are whithering in Scandinavia, and Scandinavia still funds them with the spoils of Imperialism.
As for workers and surplus value, even at the market rate, they are paid less than the value they create. That’s where profit comes from. Labor power’s value is normalized around the cost of living and reproduction, not the value created nor the productivity of labor. That is why wealth is widening. Market salary is less than the value created by labor.
As for the US vs China, no, not even close. Further, the US is the world’s largest Empire, the vast majority of its spoils come from plunder. China’s do not.
As for Central Planning, this is an extremely poor argument against it. Such an argument ignores that we have irrefutable evidence of Central Planning being far more effective than Private Ownership in many conditions, and argues against a strawman, not actual central planning. The Road to Serfdom came out in 1944, and has been thoroughly disproven in reality through the existence of Socialist economies outperforming Capitalist ones.
The truth is, in developed Capitalist nations, the economy is already planned, just through private institutions. State planning is extremely effective, and allows surpassing the limitations enforced by the profit motive. Hayek’s assertion is one of nihilism, asserting that we can’t develop further economic knowledge, but works by Paul Cockshott and the existence of well-developed economic planning disproved Hayek long ago. Central planning is about broad tendencies as well as reviewing signals from consumption to re-allocate resources, it isn’t about predicting absolutely every single thing. Such is the Strawman.
Not sure about what your China point is.
Your last round of questions is answered by studying Socialist countries. It would be one thing if none existed, but many do, and your concerns don’t pan out in reality.
I was harsh this comment, admittedly so, but because you have displayed a frustrating insistence on arguing against strawmen and asserting your views as though you have a thorough understanding of mine, when your critiques have long been outdated and based upon strawmen. I recommend reading up on Zhenli’s posts, as they are quite simplified and thorough. In particular:
What I am arguing is the Marxist POV, which is certified through historical trends. Even before land had been monopolized, the bourgeoisie quickly became dominant financially. You’re confusing the class character of workers and owners as individual judgements and not as a subsection of society with definite relations, a worker can have some savings and an owner can do some labor, but that’s not the point of class analysis. If you aren’t going to actually engage with the Marxist critique, why are you acting as though you know what the Marxist critique is? It’s condescending.
Same with the wild assumptions of workers being capable of saving at the same rate as Capitalists, and the idea that Capitalists turn profits from their own labor, and not through paying workers less than the value they create. You haven’t once engaged with that fundamental critique from the Socialist camp, that Capitalists must pay workers less than the Value they create in order to turn a profit. They can’t be similar jobs, because they have entirely different social relations.
The next part, where you repeat the idea that there can be such thing as “a mix of Socialism and Capitalism,” fundamentally avoids the arguments at hand. Socialism and Capitalism are terms for the entire system, by analyzing which aspect of society is primary, public or private ownership. Private ownership is not capitalism, and public ownership is not Socialism. Further, these safety nets came about because of strong revolutionary pressure, not democratic institutions. These Safety Nets are whithering in Scandinavia, and Scandinavia still funds them with the spoils of Imperialism.
As for workers and surplus value, even at the market rate, they are paid less than the value they create. That’s where profit comes from. Labor power’s value is normalized around the cost of living and reproduction, not the value created nor the productivity of labor. That is why wealth is widening. Market salary is less than the value created by labor.
As for the US vs China, no, not even close. Further, the US is the world’s largest Empire, the vast majority of its spoils come from plunder. China’s do not.
As for Central Planning, this is an extremely poor argument against it. Such an argument ignores that we have irrefutable evidence of Central Planning being far more effective than Private Ownership in many conditions, and argues against a strawman, not actual central planning. The Road to Serfdom came out in 1944, and has been thoroughly disproven in reality through the existence of Socialist economies outperforming Capitalist ones.
The truth is, in developed Capitalist nations, the economy is already planned, just through private institutions. State planning is extremely effective, and allows surpassing the limitations enforced by the profit motive. Hayek’s assertion is one of nihilism, asserting that we can’t develop further economic knowledge, but works by Paul Cockshott and the existence of well-developed economic planning disproved Hayek long ago. Central planning is about broad tendencies as well as reviewing signals from consumption to re-allocate resources, it isn’t about predicting absolutely every single thing. Such is the Strawman.
Not sure about what your China point is.
Your last round of questions is answered by studying Socialist countries. It would be one thing if none existed, but many do, and your concerns don’t pan out in reality.
I was harsh this comment, admittedly so, but because you have displayed a frustrating insistence on arguing against strawmen and asserting your views as though you have a thorough understanding of mine, when your critiques have long been outdated and based upon strawmen. I recommend reading up on Zhenli’s posts, as they are quite simplified and thorough. In particular:
The Comedy of Mises, about central planning critiques
Bad Philosophy: Responding to a Free Market Fundamentalist
Addressing Common Criticisms of the Labor Theory of Value, addresses surplus value and rents
Free Market Absolutism
Prices in a Planned Economy addresses central planning, and how it works
How to Calculate Value
Falling Rate of Profit, why Capitalism is inherently unsustainable and monopolization a necessity
Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism
Why Public Property?
Fiat Money: Global Theft.
These should all help you develop an understanding of what the Marxist position is, so you don’t need to argue against strawmen.