Peak Oil News and Message Boards

ralfy wrote:

americandream wrote:
If you aren't in global liquidity (which is what capital is), you aren't in capital, state or otherwise. You may be an imperfect form of socialism as in being statist. You are either in the global conduit of liquidity flow or you aren't.

Global liquidity is not necessary for state capitalism to exist.

Liquidity is capital as it:

1 It is labour value then amplified via stocks and and other non tangible assets which saw their genesis with the rise of the banks and the stock market (accumulation).

2 Drives the relentless move towards globalisation.

Earlier use of money represented static and fixed wealth such as generational land ownership or rudimentary exchange where no labour value or accumulation existed.

Confusing statist socialism with capital only makes the understanding of this particular system all the more confusing (incidentally statist socialism (the USSR, Cuba, N Korea) should not be confused with bourgeoisie socialism (Denmark, UK etc). The former has no roots in capital, the latter is capitalist with a socialised component. Capitalists prefer no expense in good times {nil socialisation) and some in bad times (interventionism) to ensure stability in accumulation.

Plantagenet wrote:

Subjectivist wrote:
Michigan had three extraction booms, first they came for the Copper, then the Lumber, and finally the Iron Ore.

A fourth extraction boom occurred when the auto companies were bailed out the government after the 2007-9 recession. GM and Chrysler extracted billions of dollars from the US taxpayer that will never be repaid in full.

Right. This is of course, after the liberal policies of supporting big union (UAW) something for nothing policies clearly failed. (i.e car companies that can't build a competitive car shouldn't exist, even when the excuse is to back extortionist labor groups who vote heavily for democrats and the protection of their "rights".

But don't worry, according to the far left, at the end of the day, it's all Ronald Reagan's fault.

Outcast_Searcher wrote:

Plantagenet wrote:

Subjectivist wrote:
Michigan had three extraction booms, first they came for the Copper, then the Lumber, and finally the Iron Ore.

A fourth extraction boom occurred when the auto companies were bailed out the government after the 2007-9 recession. GM and Chrysler extracted billions of dollars from the US taxpayer that will never be repaid in full.

Right. This is of course, after the liberal policies of supporting big union (UAW) something for nothing policies clearly failed. (i.e car companies that can't build a competitive car shouldn't exist, even when the excuse is to back extortionist labor groups who vote heavily for democrats and the protection of their "rights".

But don't worry, according to the far left, at the end of the day, it's all Ronald Reagan's fault.

In capitalist society, everyone is vying for a bigger slice of accumulation. Workers band into groups (unions) in order to improve bargaining power. Employers into lobbying groups, etc. The name of the game is power.

In good times, the drive is towards wealth consolidation by the capitalist (minimal tax). In bad times, interventionism (bailing out, more welfare, goverment subsidised work etc, etc) is the preferred option. Clearly, a person with no money in their pockets cannot buy your goods.

Then we bring an emotional understanding to this, throwing away our thinking caps in the process. But at the base of it all is ensuring that the capitalist is either getting richer or at worst, not going bust. Policy shifts have little to do with liberal this and conservative that. Both elements of the managerial class (politicians) simply carry out the bidding of the owners of capital.

americandream wrote:In capitalist society, everyone is vying for a bigger slice of accumulation.

Whereas in socialist society people no longer strive for themselves, but instead join together in brotherhood with their fellow workers who all willingly give up their desires for money and material goods in order to live in poverty under the watchful eye of the great leader.


Join the socialist movement and live in poverty under the great leader
or else he will feed you to a pack of starving dogs!!!!

North Korea operates as a single-party state under a totalitarian family dictatorship, with an absolute hereditary monarchy. The economy is also family owned and is more like a feudal system then having any resemblance to a socialist one.

Lore wrote:North Korea operates as a single-party state under a totalitarian .... dictatorship

Yes, thats the kind of political system that the communist party advocates for.

Communists believe that a dictatorship is the most effective way to institute socialism. And the combination of a dictatorship and a socialist economic system results in an extreme concentration of both economic and political power in the hands of a very small and select leadership group (i.e. the 0.01%).

Lore wrote:North Korea operates as a single-party state under a totalitarian family dictatorship, with an absolute hereditary monarchy. The economy is also family owned and is more like a feudal system then having any resemblance to a socialist one.

I did qualify my earleir comments in characterising these as imperfect socialism. Generally, these peerages emerged from good intent.

The initial leaders of revolution realise that to change culture, you required stability.

In America's case that stability arose within the church as the early founders sought to reinvent the then English feudal culture into a new one with strong ties to the land and meritocracy (For Plantaganets benefit: Marxists actually view the emergence of meritocracy in America as a revolutionary act in overwhelming feudal culture and advancing reason. However, systems have a limited lifespan and in identifying capitalism's tendencies, Marx then took us to the only logical conclusions. Optimisation and then another revolution. If you hold that thought in your mind, you may well make sense of what is occurring and actually act with balance in dealing with life. I am not suggesting for a minute that you join OWS, what I am suggesting is thinking.)

In socialist states, lifetime leaderships are common. Sometimes they devolve into corrupt peerages. Having said that, statist forms of socialism (preempting history) were cautioned by Marx as unworkeable for containing many likely pitfalls, not the least being the rise of corruption.

americandream wrote:
Liquidity is capital as it:

1 It is labour value then amplified via stocks and and other non tangible assets which saw their genesis with the rise of the banks and the stock market (accumulation).

2 Drives the relentless move towards globalisation.

Earlier use of money represented static and fixed wealth such as generational land ownership or rudimentary exchange where no labour value or accumulation existed.

Confusing statist socialism with capital only makes the understanding of this particular system all the more confusing (incidentally statist socialism (the USSR, Cuba, N Korea) should not be confused with bourgeoisie socialism (Denmark, UK etc). The former has no roots in capital, the latter is capitalist with a socialised component. Capitalists prefer no expense in good times {nil socialisation) and some in bad times (interventionism) to ensure stability in accumulation.

As shown in the two points you gave, globalization for the USSR came later.

Also, state socialism is in various ways state capitalism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_soc ... ist_states

I very much doubt that the people of the former Soviet Union actually had a say concerning the use of the means of production, among others.

Communism is transitory to socialism and authoritarian as the new man is invented. It however requires a high state of consciousness. The leaders of the Russian Revolution were par excellence and created a very strong contender to world social economy status. But in no way was the USSR remotely within sniffing distance of captal, no matter how imperfect its communism was. No way. Bourgeoisie intellectuals like to think otherwise, for a whole raft of reasons, mostly ill thought out.

There seems to be a lot of emotional flubbering by Plantaganet when history and systems are discussed. It would be wise for him to contemplate that it will not be a subejective event, but a historical one. Causes have effects and thus, we Marxists introspect on this when considering the fate of the exponential within the finite.

For me , the USSR was state capitalist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalist

because it had the qualities of industrial capitalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalis ... capitalism

with ownership by a State in which workers had little say.

And it would not have lasted given the eventual move to globalization, as well as reasons such as peak oil and global warming.

ralfy wrote:For me , the USSR was state capitalist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalist

because it had the qualities of industrial capitalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalis ... capitalism

with ownership by a State in which workers had little say.

And it would not have lasted given the eventual move to globalization, as well as reasons such as peak oil and global warming.

You have to really focus on what capital is and not why Marx was incorrectly applied by Lenin (other than to ensure we don't repeat the mistake again). If you confuse the two, you will never get your head around the objective dynamics at play.

These are all about objective forces, not what we would lke to see.

americandream wrote:
You have to really focus on what capital is and not why Marx was incorrectly applied by Lenin (other than to ensure we don't repeat the mistake again). If you confuse the two, you will never get your head around the objective dynamics at play.

These are all about objective forces, not what we would lke to see.

Capitalism does not necessarily involve stock markets or initially globalization, as shown in your earlier post.

ralfy wrote:

americandream wrote:
You have to really focus on what capital is and not why Marx was incorrectly applied by Lenin (other than to ensure we don't repeat the mistake again). If you confuse the two, you will never get your head around the objective dynamics at play.

These are all about objective forces, not what we would lke to see.

Capitalism does not necessarily involve stock markets or initially globalization, as shown in your earlier post.

Capital as it contemplates social economy requires accumulation via the capitalist, labour value and factors for consolidation such as intangible assets and the stock market.

Anyways, I am asking you to think objectively whereas it appears that you can't get past the subjective. So I am going to leave this endless tail chasing here.

americandream wrote:
Capital as it contemplates social economy requires accumulation via the capitalist, labour value and factors for consolidation such as intangible assets and the stock market.

Anyways, I am asking you to think objectively whereas it appears that you can't get past the subjective. So I am going to leave this endless tail chasing here.

Yes, but you don't need stock markets and globalization initially. At least that's what I gathered from the two points you gave in an earlier message.

Given that, I don't see how my views are subjective.