State capitalism is the economic's of (or was) of communism. State Factor #117 
and all that. I am more concerned about political evils and murders committed 
by the communists. The small scale communism sounds just like the old co-ops of 
the 20th century, US. Nowadays, modern communism is 100% entwined with Crony 
Capitalism. Look at China, billionaires, look at Russia, billionaire oligarchs, 
look at the US, billionaire oligarchs catered to by BHO, and yes, the Koch's 
for the Republicans, George Soros the Democrats. Are all these systems less 
bloodthirsty, now that our systems are mixed economies? I don't now. Whatever 
system we are embedded in, I want it to see to protecting our rights, and our 
survival. Will it? 



-----Original Message-----
From: meekerdb <[email protected]>
To: everything-list <[email protected]>
Sent: Sat, Apr 4, 2015 4:16 pm
Subject: Re: Life in the Islamic State for women


  
On 4/4/2015 6:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:  
  
  
   
Hi John   
    
    
     
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 10:10 PM, John Mikes      <[email protected]> wrote:     
      
       
TELMO:        
I did not expect from you to point to the 2 centuries old obsolete and 
theoretical exercise of Marx-Engels (irrespective of Lenin's intermitted LATER 
speculations) as "blueprint" for a (still?) viable(?)  political system.       
       
      
      
      
      
      
I don't think it was ever viable, and I don't think it's relevant to the 
current times, as it is based on too many assumption from an era that is long 
gone (early Industrialism).     
      
      
      
      
What I mean is, when people use the word "communism", there is a document that 
describes precisely what this word is supposed to mean. A blueprint for 
communism.     
      
      
      
      
I do think that Marx-Engels correctly identified social problems that remain 
being problems to this day, namely the self-reinforcing nature of wealth 
inequality. The issue is that their proposed solution seems to equalize society 
by throwing the majority of people into extreme poverty and servitude.     
      
      
      
       
        
 It never got further than a tyranny of 'leftish-sounding' slogans by 
pretenders. As the original authors dreamed it up, it never (and nowhere) did 
get off from the ground.        
        
I know, I lived in a so called "Peoples' Democracy" (Called 'commi' system - ha 
ha)  which was neither "peoples'" nor democracy. Nor Marxist, nor Leninist.     
   
        
It was a Stalinist tyranny. And Maoist, Pol-Pot, plus a KimIrSen-istic one.     
  
       
      
      
      
      
      
I would be very interested in any story you had to share about those times.     
      
      
      
      
I agree that these societies never achieved anything resembling what Marx 
proposed. The remaining communists of today tend to argue that all of past 
communist movements were not sincere in their motivations. That might very well 
be true, but even then it is an important piece of information on human nature. 
If we are trying to get from A -> B and we always stumble on the same horrors 
along the way, maybe the plan is just not viable for this world. So far we have 
learned that either communism is a terrible idea or communist revolutions 
always end up being hijacked by sociopaths. To be honest, I think both are 
true.     
     
    
   
  
  
 Communism is not a terrible idea - it works fine for families.  A lot of 
political problems come from trying to extend ethics that evolved for families 
and small tribes to nation states of millions of unrelated people.  Capitalism 
has problems from the same source.  Owning a flint spearhead you made is 
unproblematic.  If you own it you can prohibit its use, sell it, bequeath it,  
etc.  But when this idea was extended to owning land it created problems.  John 
Locke thought owning land was an oxymoron...you could only "own" the temporary 
use of land.  Didn't matter for hunter-gatherers, but it was problem that had 
to be solved for agricultural society. 
  
 That now a lot the world's GDP comes from capital has created the same kinds 
of questions about ownership of capital.  Given that r>g in Piketty's analysis, 
is it a good idea to allow the Koch brothers to inherit a billion dollar 
business (that their father built by drilling for Stalin). 
  
  
   
    
     
      
      
      
       
        
        
        
        
        
        
Capitalism - in my view an advanced form of slavery, following feudalism - 
started to destroy the entire human experiment on this Globe - way before the 
"warming" entered the picture.        
        
It never 'faced' a competition of any 'socialistic' challenger. It succumbbed 
to the authoritarian religious tyrannies (brutal and violent, or just 
retracting and philosophical).        
       
      
      
      
      
      
As with communism, there is a big gap between the theory and the 
implementation. "Advanced form of slavery" might be a way to put it, but an 
even more cynical view would be that there's always been slavery to some 
degree.     
      
      
      
      
I believe that the big challenge that we face is how to move to a jobless 
society. Worse, I think this transition already started but there is still no 
political will to admit it. Robotics and AI are Marx's worse nightmare. In the 
limit, the number of employees required by a business will tend to zero, while 
the ability of a business to provide goods for the rest of us keeps being more 
and more leveraged by technological advance. One of the realities about the 
current economic crises that few are willing to admit: there simply are no 
longer jobs for everyone.     
      
      
      
      
I think the best idea that we have so far is the universal flat salary.     
      
     
    
   
  
  
 The trouble with that is that when everyone has the same income nobody feels 
rich...and people like to feel rich.  It's Nietzsche's "will to power".  So 
people who have $100 billion don't want to give up $99 billion to the general 
welfare, even though it would make the world better and make no discernible 
difference in their life style.  So they instead use a few billion to persuade 
people to vote for politicians who won't tax them. 
  
 Brent 
  
  
 --  
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group. 
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to  [email protected]. 
 To post to this group, send email to  [email protected]. 
 Visit this group at  http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 
 For more options, visit  https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to