Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Richard Wolff is a professor of economics. In this lecture, he breaks all misconceptions of what socialism is.
What most people think is socialism is only state capitalism.

Well worth the watch whether you are leaning to the left or the right.
This is a 50 mn clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Uwj4tBuCmY

Here is part 2 of this presentation, it starts at 37:55
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAeRzDnY90E

Poordogabone wrote:Richard Wolff is a professor of economics. In this lecture, he breaks all misconceptions of what socialism is.
What most people think is socialism is only state capitalism.

Well worth the watch whether you are leaning to the left or the right.
This is a 50 mn clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Uwj4tBuCmY

This notion that capital can assume statist proportions is absurd. A fundamental facet of capitalism is its non-statism (note I do not use the active adjective anti, but the dispassionate non) If at any point in the flow of history, private and statist forces collude in the transit of liquidity around this globe, that is transitional dialecticism. Then capitalism comes into its own when the state is rendered neutered, symbolic and then vanishes.

AD did you watch the clip ?, Could you reformulate your argument so a laymen like me can understand. Wolff says in simple words that in so called socialist or communist countries, the ruling class was replaced from private to state control which would probably have Marx roll in his grave. The whole point of socialism was to obtain equality and democracy, for instance the mass of workers who actually produce the goodies who be in control of how, what and where to produce and most importantly how to dispense of the profits.

Poordogabone wrote:AD did you watch the clip ?, Could you reformulate your argument so a laymen like me can understand. Wolff says in simple words that in so called socialist or communist countries, the ruling class was replaced from private to state control which would probably have Marx roll in his grave. The whole point of socialism was to obtain equality and democracy, for instance the mass of workers who actually produce the goodies who be in control of how, what and where to produce and most importantly how to dispense of the profits.

Scientific socialism is primarily about history, of which equality and democracy are 2 of its many contours...it is merely about giving effect to the forces of history which are in the finality egalitarian and democratic (as well as lots of other things) for conscious species, being founded on the platform of consciousness. To get there we have passed through and given effect to other cultural filters and capitalism is the penultimate one (or the exit to extinction dependent on which comes sooner.)

No he can't PDB. Its gobledegook.

We all know how the game of Capitalist Monopoly works: one player wins and the rest lose, at least until the next round. But what if you are a permanent loser? That is unfair. The most obvious solution to this crisis is to remake the rules in your favor.

Brilliant minds among the loser community have made repeated attempts to make new rules that would allow them to become winners. They mostly ended up with appointing one of the players to be a dictator (usually themselves), who promises to redistribute everything on the board equally so that everyone wins. The dictator appoints assistants and together they become the government. For this plan to work, the government must forcibly take over all the property on the game board. Thus the government becomes a monopolist and the sole big winner. All the others become perpetual lesser winners: equal among themselves, but not equal to the government and its officials. Let's broadly describe it as Socialist Monopoly.

But not all the state-run rental properties on the board are equal, so the game goes on. Now the selection of winners becomes wholly dependent on a player's personal relationship with the government. Those who are not the relatives or good friends with the government, become losers. The latter can still stay in the game by participating in an intricate system of bribes, kickbacks, and exchange of favors. Those unwilling to play by these rules become the ultimate losers and are despised by everybody. Usually they are the people who would previously win in Capitalist Monopoly.

When all the redistribution has been completed, Socialist Monopoly becomes a really boring and tedious game. The government deflects the growing dissatisfaction by adding a new rule: all players must blame the former winners of Capitalist Monopoly for sabotage and obstructionism. After all the said former winners quit and leave the table, the interest in the game is sustained with the help of cheap vodka, which also helps to suppress mutual resentment and hatred. The game ends when all players, including the government, lose all motivation to go on, or fall under the table into a puddle of their own vomit, whichever comes first.

The most common explanation for the failures of Socialist Monopoly is that the brilliant minds of the loser community simply haven't got it right yet. This gives everyone hope that someday there will appear a sharper, more brilliant loser who will get it right.

And so the dream lives on, about a game where everyone can be an equal winner while still being able to enjoy the game without ending up hating everyone else, sending the most successful players to jail, and falling under the table in a drunken stupor.

Thus, the efforts to reinvent Monopoly never stop. Below are just some failed examples. Will you take the challenge and create a game of Socialist Monopoly that actually works?

Progressive Monopoly



Communist Monopoly



Socialist Monopoly with lines - Polish style



http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/can-socialist-monopoly-compete-with-capitalist-monopoly-t17640.html

KaiserJeep wrote:
We all know how the game of Capitalist Monopoly works: one player wins and the rest lose, at least until the next round. But what if you are a permanent loser? That is unfair. The most obvious solution to this crisis is to remake the rules in your favor.

Brilliant minds among the loser community have made repeated attempts to make new rules that would allow them to become winners. They mostly ended up with appointing one of the players to be a dictator (usually themselves), who promises to redistribute everything on the board equally so that everyone wins.

Absolutely right, KJ. Of course, you'll be vilified by the far left for daring to point this out. You'll be called a liar, ignorant, etc.

This reminds me of the wonderful job Ayn Rand did of pointing out the nature and results of Socialist Monopoly in 1957 in her Magnum Opus, "Atlas Shrugged". Of course we know the results. The far left HATES Ayn Rand and whines about her every chance they get.

And so it goes.

Capitalism is an objective historical dynamic. One cannot express it subjectively. Many try and persistently fail as the players, both capitalist and labour, are compelled by its dictates, to act contrary to all their fines pronouncements of outrage.

What capitalism does though is punish incompetency with either cyclical volatility (think failed hedge funds and the trading desks at banks) or systemic crises (think Islam). The sooner we come to terms with these objective tendencies, the less painful is the transition to a pure and free market and that which will as of necessity follow. Delay this process and the climate will pay us a visit, if that has not already commenced.

This notion of winner/loser game seem very two dimensional just like a monopoly board.
In a nutshell you're advocating social Darwinism which tends to lead to fascism. In this game it doesn't take much to be a winner, if you have sociopathic tendencies you are well on your way.
I would prefer a system were there is the lease amount of suffering and environmental depredation but what do I know?

Ayn Rand? Do we really need to recycle that garbage?

Poordogabone wrote:This notion of winner/loser game seem very two dimensional just like a monopoly board.
In a nutshell you're advocating social Darwinism which tend to lead to fascism. In this game it doesn't take much to be a winner, if you have sociopathic tendencies you are well on your way.
I would prefer a system were there is the lease amount of suffering and environmental depredation but what do I know?

Darwinism (or subjective functioning) is a function of evolution as is material dialecticism (or objective fuinctioning). The former is evident in the animal kingdom and quite appropriate. The latter is designated for the human species and a WIP. There are some necessary steps to endure and one is globalisation through the markets. A sort of necessary evil. As with preceding relations, this form of hybridised rationalism with its mix of privilege and innovation, accompanied by the rise of labour as it is, will have winners and losers, so you are correct. Some will suffer, many will suffer with alienation rampant. It also comes with a major risk being climate meltdown.

Poordogabone wrote:This notion of winner/loser game seem very two dimensional just like a monopoly board.
In a nutshell you're advocating social Darwinism which tends to lead to fascism. In this game it doesn't take much to be a winner, if you have sociopathic tendencies you are well on your way.
I would prefer a system were there is the lease amount of suffering and environmental depredation but what do I know?

I assume you mean "least"? What you wish for has nothing to do with reality. In the real word, actions have actual economic consequences, and real competition does exist. Also, there are an increasingly huge number of people to feed, who want their homes to be heated and air conditioned, etc.

So deny the idea of the winner/loser all you want, but history shows that has a huge impact on real world economics.

That would all be fine if the "haves" played on the same board as the "have not" the thing is that the "haves" have carved quite a different board for themselves were each square is quite rosy whereas the board for the less fortunate consist pretty much of each square telling you to eat poop and obey or go to jail. IOW the game is rigged and there is no winner.

Poordogabone wrote:That would all be fine if the "haves" played on the same board as the "have not" the thing is that the "haves" have carved quite a different board for themselves were each square is quite rosy whereas the board for the less fortunate consist pretty much of each square telling you to eat poop and obey or go to jail. IOW the game is rigged and there is no winner.

One can no more rig the structure of capitalism as one can enforce ones inclinations on history. What one can do however, is subject these forces to competencies that render the actors surplus to requirements. Paradoxically it is only through an understanding of these forces that we wil bee in a position to move fluidly within its tendencies to a rapid resolution of its contradictions.

That said, recent developments in climate may well suggest that the human experiment is perhaps about to wound up. I will be observing the data closely.

Whenever you try to ignore a natural law, sooner or later you get into big trouble.

I am curious what makes you think that Darwinism can be ignored (social or not) ?

Darwinism is a very very slow process. Check this out:


Apes walking on two feet have been around 7 million years or so. But Homo Sapiens replaced Homo Neanderthalensis about 15,000 years ago during the last glacial period, and has been so successful that Darwinism has arguably stopped and may have reversed.

KaiserJeep wrote:
We all know how the game of Capitalist Monopoly works: one player wins and the rest lose, at least until the next round. But what if you are a permanent loser? That is unfair. The most obvious solution to this crisis is to remake the rules in your favor.

Well, I once met a guy who stopped at all the green lights and drove through all the red lights. In the case of Monopoly, if you bought the game then somebody made money off of your purchase.

When I was 12 years old (over 40 years ago) I realized that one could make a lot of dough by speculating on the market. I understood instinctively that these people were not winners but parasites.
I learn later that most of humanity agrees with me. This obsession with money especially here in the US is taking the country down, never mind global warming.

Poordogabone wrote:When I was 12 years old (over 40 years ago) I realized that one could make a lot of dough by speculating on the market. I understood instinctively that these people were not winners but parasites.
I learn later that most of humanity agrees with me. This obsession with money especially here in the US is taking the country down, never mind global warming.

Once upon a time, when I lived in cannibalismia, cannibalism disgusted me.