why not just go all the way to workers' self-management? — thewonder

That's what a co-op is, in part. But most importantly is this: they're their own board of directors. They hire and fire CEOs and managers, set pay grades and ratios, decide whether to expand, decide whether they want to bring in private investment and issue stocks, etc. etc. Run very much like companies now -- only difference is that it's worker-run, and run democratically. Shouldn't be a shocking or difficult notion -- except for the propaganda of the United States.

Occupy Wall Street was a broad-based anti-capitalist movement that became popular in 2011. — thewonder

I'm aware of what Occupy Wall Street was. I was there.

Slavoj Zizek was sort of involved with it, but it wasn't communist by any stretch of the imagination. — thewonder

I never said it was communist, so I don't understand this comment.

As for Zizek -- he's a complete imbecile, in my view, and I have no idea why you'd invoke him in this discussion. But carry on as you will.

the markets, supply and demand
— Xtrix

So why produce something with zero demand. Where does the demand come from? — Outlander

I never once said anyone should or would produce something without a demand. That's not the point at all. The question was: who makes the decision about what to produce, how to produce, how much to produce, where to produce (the US? Mexico? China?), and how to allocate the profits of this production?

The answer to this question just simply isn't "the consumer," or "the market." That's ridiculous as soon as you look at how corporations are run. The answer, rather, is simple and straightforward: the board of directors.

Of course it is. Because if not, that means you and your entire life choices are stupid. Which is impossible, clearly. — Outlander

So getting upset at being politely contradicted, and having nothing left to say except to angrily remark that I've "drank the anarchist kool-aid" -- a complete non-sequitur -- is not a stupid remark, but rather my psychology and ego not allowing me to realize how true it is?

Fine -- I've wasted my life on anarchist stuff. Happy? Now let's get back to the real world, and the real questions about corporate structure, and the simple fact that the board of directors makes the decisions about where to allocate profits and how the company should be run (along with choosing the CEO, etc).

his entire reply is a service to others who may be reading at this point. — Outlander

And an informative and well-argued reply it was. At least you're not making a complete laughingstock of yourself.

pretty good Occupy agitprop and bid for co-ops. — thewonder

It's not communist propaganda, and it's not a bid for co-ops. It's simply the factual structure of the corporation and the simple fact of where profits go. Not a word about Occupy. You're just making that up.

I think co-ops serve as a good alternative model. Whether they should be pushed, or whether we should return to a more Keynesian era of regimented capitalism -- the era of managerialism -- is another question. I'm inclined to think the latter is a more viable option temporarily, while also encouraging alternative forms of corporate governance (like co-ops or 20% of board seats going to workers, or strong labor unions).

The consumer does not decide these things within a corporation.
— Xtrix

So we have corporations making products people don't like, buy, need, or use. And are still in business. Ok. — Outlander

The question was: who decides what to produce, how to produce it, and what to do with the profits. That's not the business of "consumers," because that's absurd. The answer is: the board of directors decides these matters. These people, within the corporation, makes these decisions based on all kinds of factors: the markets, supply and demand, fiscal and monetary policies the government is enacting, and so on. But the internal decisions are in their hands alone. The consumer has zero input in this.

See folks this is what happens when you drink the anarchist kool aid. — Outlander

This is a stupid comment. Sorry your feelings were hurt by pointing out that you're wrong. I thought I did it nicely.

This question has nothing to do with anarchism. Nothing. It has to do with corporate governance and its structure.

What is your alternative? — Outlander

Alternative to what?

Not so surprised by the lack of response, so I'll give them myself and see if others find them accurate.

(1) Who "owns" the corporation? Private and public? — Xtrix

A corporation is a legal person. Because slavery is illegal, a corporation is not owned. It owns itself.

(2) What is the most powerful position within a corporation? — Xtrix

I would argue the board of directors. So the chairman of the board, or even the CEO.

(3) Who decides what to produce, how to produce, where to produce? — Xtrix

The board of directors.

(4) Who decides what to do with the profits? — Xtrix

The board of directors.

(5) Where do the profits mostly go, in today's typical fortune 500 company?

(a) Infrastructure (factories, buildings, equipment)
(b) Workers wages, benefits
(c) Expanding the workforce (hiring)
(d) Dividends
(e) Stock buybacks
(f) Paying taxes
(g) Advertising
(h) Lobbying
(i) Research and development (creating new products) — Xtrix

The answer is (e), stock buybacks. At least in the last few years. That's worth dwelling on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-5UVxoThfQ

Stock buybacks shouldn't be allowed anyway. It all comes down to the silly Freidman Doctrine -- shareholder primacy. I'm glad that's beginning to end.

Shareholders are not the owners of the company, and the company does not need to prioritize them. They should be dealt with after the employees, the infrastructure of the company, and the community at large has also been taken care of. What's left can go to dividends if the board of directors so desire -- as was the case for decades (40s, 50s, 60s, 70s).

What happened was the ideology changed to shareholder primacy, thanks in part to guys like Milty, and the boards of directors started getting voted in/pressured to make moves to encourage directing more of the profits to the shareholders in the form of dividends and maximizing share price (through stock buybacks), at the expense of other profit investment -- which is why we've seen worker wages stagnate and companies investing less in R&D, factories and equipment. They did this in part by linking CEO pay with quarterly stock price -- paying a large portion of their salaries with company stocks, or with bonuses that are contingent on share price increases per quarter.

(6) Would anyone say that a corporation is run democratically? — Xtrix

Not how they're run now. They can be run democratically, and a good model of that is the cooperative model, but that's not how major corporations are run today. In terms of corporate governance, the form of government could best be described as totalitarian or tyranny. Top-down structure, where orders are passed down, and at the bottom a majority of wage slaves who rent themselves (their time, energy, labor -- i.e., the better part of their adult life) in order to live.

These corporations are the major employers in the world, and they have positioned themselves to essentially own the state. Of the corporate world, the most powerful by far has become the financial sector -- banks, investment firms, asset managers, etc. In other words: Wall Street.

But, when you do the research, how many people have actually died from nuclear power? — Shawn

Right. It's extremely rare. But people don't want it in their back yard. I think that's the problem. Understandable, but ultimately mistaken -- when you have a far greater chance of dying in a car accident or in your tub.

I tend to be on your side in terms of nuclear. While I appreciate arguments against nuclear power, like the fact that they occasionally explode, like the problems of extracting uranium (or whatever), and the problems of storage -- it's still clean energy in terms of carbon emissions. It should therefore be a big component of future targets. But that'll require, above all, rehabilitating its reputation.

It's your thread, — thewonder

I agree with everything you said except this. I don’t consider it “mine” — someone had to start a thread on climate change and it happened to be me. But it’s a general repository for discussions.

I was still typing. I don't feel a need to keep debating this, but, that may or may not be possible as Xtrix's solution to the ecological crisis, like mine, though I'm willing to exit this thread, as they have taken a disliking to me, may involve some sort of alternative to Liberal democracy. — thewonder

It’s a disliking with your ideas, perhaps. No one knows each other here. We’re all using screen names after all.

Depends on what you mean by liberal democracy. I’ll be clear as to what I want: democracy though and though, including within corporate governance. As it stands now, we have very limited democracy in the political sphere (structurally and through legislation and court decisions— and continually right up to the present), and when it comes to how corporations are organized and run, literally zero.

I think this is related to climate change, but it’s several steps removed from the more immediate solutions available and so perhaps a stretch to argue it should continue on this thread.

Personally I'd hold such views to the math & logic section in PF. There it can be so. — ssu

I think it can extend to history and economics as well, but…

Let's get back to the topic. — ssu

Agreed.

Be just in your fantasies about what "true socialism" is and rewrite history to what you want it to be. — ssu

Boring.

So you're unable to defend yourself, I take it.

Right -- it's hilariously funny for those with a shallow understanding of the socialist tradition and who apparently have never read a word of Marx.
— Xtrix
Actually I was taught Marxist economics in the University. Along with mainstream economics, perhaps I should add. — ssu

They had you read Marx in university? I know you're not in the US, but I can guarantee you didn't go to an American university. Glad to hear.

But I guess you never did visited East Germany or the Soviet Union. — ssu

I did not. I never visited the Moon, either. But I can still understand it.

I had opportunity to do so, even lived for a short time with a Russian family in Moscow during the Gorbachev era. Pretty interesting to compare that experience to the few years I was in the US as a child. — ssu

I'm sure Russia was a shithole and the US was much nicer. That would be my guess.

The fact that you think this proves something is exactly what I'm driving at when I mention your indoctrination. But again, indoctrination doesn't mean you're a bad human being, in my view. You're just mistaken. I would fault you for being unwilling to learn and listen, however.

Of course, with mainstream socialism (in the West) one could argue to be talking about social democracy, not communism. That would have a point. But I don't think that people here are making that argument. — ssu

No, I'm talking about 19th century socialist and Marxist thought, which advocated worker control. Not top-down state control, not socially beneficial state legislation, and certainly not autocratic rule. There were socialists that were statist and anti-statist, for example.

That workers control the factories they work in goes way back. Being their own board of directors. Basically eliminating "owners" and employers. That's the mainstream socialism in the 19th century. I didn't say that was mainstream today. If what's mainstream today is "democratic socialism," then that's a different story.

The core of socialism was understood to be workers control over production. That was the core. That's where you begin, and then you go on to other things. The beginning is control by the workers over production. That's where it begins.

What does this have to do with what the USSR and China? They can call themselves "socialist" or "communist," and maybe they represent some deviation of the mainstream thought, or maybe it's a pretense. But it doesn't matter much when you look at how they run their societies.

I think you are living proof of how shallow and nonexistent historical knowledge is and how people pick just what they want to hear. — ssu

Yeah, that's what I just said about you. Good response, Donald Trump.

To demonstrate how accurate my statement is:

Oh yes, USSR and Communist China weren't mainstream socialist thinking!

That is hilariously funny. — ssu

Right -- it's hilariously funny for those with a shallow understanding of the socialist tradition and who apparently have never read a word of Marx.

But Chomsky speaks about it more succinctly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsC0q3CO6lM

Soo...↪Xtrix tells us that USSR was "non-mainstream socialism" and we (or I) should read, among others, Rosa Luxembourg. — ssu

You should read Rosa Luxemburg. You haven't so far, and I urge you to.

Apparently you don't understand even what you quoted. You also fail to cite the source (relevant, given the very fluid circumstances of the revolution) -- which is from 1918. Not once is "mainstream socialism" (which is my wording) mentioned -- so that remark is irrelevant, but yes there is a spirit of solidarity -- of course. Lenin endorsed many aspects of mainstream socialism at first-- and that almost immediately changed. (Trump talked a populist game -- so what?)

Where, for example, is the mention of a "labor army" in Luxemburg? What happened to worker control over production? Luxemburg criticized Lenin for this, and the "opportunistic vanguardism" as Chomsky mentions above, and Lenin himself justified his policies as only "temporarily necessary" as a holding action until the real revolution happened in Germany.

But I'm sure you know all that, given your very nuanced views.

Well, after reading that praise of Lenin and the bolsheviks above from Rosa Luxembourg herself, I think it's obvious that one of us doesn't know history, or what people actually wrote, and in this case it isn't me. — ssu

No -- it's exactly that.

Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism, were not in the mainstream socialist tradition. The mainstream socialists/Marxists advocated for worker control over production. There's none of that in the above mentioned policies.

So I repeat: your view of socialism is a weird one. But very much in line with pop culture and average, mainstream opinion -- which is very superficial, and which is a result of indoctrination in the educational and media systems. Sorry! That's ultimately no real fault of your own, in my view.

I don’t think we have to look in the shadows, really. It’s right there in front of us. No sinister plot, no conspiracy. Not as exciting perhaps, but we’re interested in how things really work, yes?

I would say (e) and (h). — javi2541997

You’re partially right!

(3) Who decides what to produce, how to produce, where to produce?
— Xtrix

The consumer. — Outlander

The consumer does not decide these things within a corporation.

Apparently if you assert there is an answer and appear to be interested in it, you may as well share it with us. — Outlander

To the above question, there is a clear answer — when dealing with fortune 500 companies. The answer is the board of directors.

You think corporations are bad? Ha! You clearly haven't been around non-governed human nature. Watch Lord of the Flies for a minuscule taste. — Outlander

Why watch it when you can read it?

Regardless— no, corporations are not inherently “bad”, nor did I say this. Any more than a hammer is inherently bad.

This has nothing to do with “governed human nature.”

:lol:

Who would equate socialism with the USSR and Communist China (or Cuba, Venezuela or North Korea)? — ssu

As I said: those who know very little about the socialist tradition. Kind of like modern usage of “conservative”, or “libertarian.”

If socialism is central planning, then the US has major elements of that— look at the central bank, for example. (To say nothing of fiscal policy, which also interferes on a massive scale.)

China’s GDP growth is far more than ours. Yet your strategy is to either dismiss that or attribute it to capitalism (by which you apparently mean free markets).

This alone should tell you that your concepts aren’t serving you well. In my view, you’re yet another victim of years of indoctrination on this matter. So much so that it seems ludicrous to suggest the USSR and China aren’t in line with mainstream socialist thinking at all (which is true). National socialism had the word right in it— are we convinced that was socialism?

It helps to know the tradition and the varying strands that developed. First and foremost, of course, is to actually read Marx. But then Rocker, Bakunin, Luxemburg, etc. Otherwise — begging your pardon— your understanding of these matters is very superficial.

Perhaps I'll add one more:

"Would you want to work in one of these institutions?"

Just for fun, this gem from David Hume:

NOTHING appears more surprizing to those, who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that, as Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular. The soldan of Egypt, or the emperor of Rome, might drive his harmless subjects, like brute beasts, against their sentiments and inclination: But he must, at least, have led his mamalukes, or prætorian bands, like men, by their opinion. — David Hume, On The First Principles of Government

This is what I've tried to say much less eloquently.

Whether the corporate sector or the state, there are human beings making decisions. These decisions happen against the background of attitudes, beliefs, perceptions — which are shaped by culture, but especially the educational and media systems. — Xtrix

I want to add something a little less broad and abstract to fill this in: the present day.

What's really happening in the world today? How does it function? How is it organized?

It seems to me that when looked at from a perspective that highlights class, there is little question that the political and economic ruling class are nearly all of one ideology: we deserve to be in power, and deserve even more power.

The nation state has replaced the monarchy and separated from the church. But there's no separation from the religion of the ruling class, which has a similar relation to the state that the church had to the monarchy during the height of their powers in the middle ages. They have hijacked the political power through ideas and communication -- and so all political parties must declare loyalty to capitalism as they declared belief in God, the rest being mostly incidental.

I think the reason their propaganda worked so well was because of the opportunistic use of stagflation during the 1970s and the unhappiness with the Carter administration. But also because it was theoretically more sophisticated (honed since the New Deal), and because the push was harder than the prior 25-30 years. Why? Because the threat was seen as much larger -- namely, the movements of the late 60s, and in particular the questioning of the economic system.

Even without the convenient backdrop of the Cold War and the easy comparison to "communism," these movements alone would have been enough to awaken the dragon. Right after these movements you have the Powell memorandum (1971) to the Chamber of Commerce, which essentially identifies the problem (too much democracy, too much questioning, too socialistic, too adversarial to the "free enterprise system") and outlines a strategy for pushing back against it, but also the Trilateral Commission (1975) -- which does the same (notice the symbol of the flag in the crosshairs).

All this leads to, in my view, the third most consequential election of the last 50 years: the 1980 election. Reagan was a smart choice -- a well-known actor, former candidate (with an enthusiastic base), governor of California, and perfect puppet. The time was apparently right to overtake the government and inaugurate a new era -- one completely determined by the masters of the universe: the neoliberal era, embodied in Reagan's inaugural speech as the slogan "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."

This was simultaneously done, electorally, by hijacking the Republican party since Nixon, forming a coalition of evangelicals, southern racists (the so called "Southern Strategy"), etc., bonded by social issues like abortion, affirmative action, "welfare queens," and an intense fear of communism.

With Reagan in the Whitehouse, and with the Friedman Doctrine dominating corporate governance, what Marx called the bourgeois now controlled both the corporation and the state.

In the present day, there are still those who cling to the failed, destructive neoliberal policies and the political and economic philosophy that underlies them, even after 40 years of this experiment. We should try our best to educate, but also remember that we have the majority.

Simply repeating "market mechanism" ad nauseam means absolutely nothing.
— Xtrix
And if you don't understand how socialism worked in Soviet Union or China... — ssu

I haven't made any claims about how "socialism" worked in either, because it's a ridiculous notion. Completely meaningless until we say what we mean by "socialism." Turns out what you mean by it is very strange indeed, at least for anyone who's familiar with the intellectual tradition, if you equate socialism with the USSR or China.

So (1) what is meant by "socialism," and (2) if socialism is "central planning," then where does socialism end and capitalism begin in China? (Likewise for the United States -- who are in many ways a socialist country as well -- but socialist for the wealthy. for multinational corporations, and for the finance sector.)

I have no idea what you're talking about here.
— Xtrix
Seems so. And that's why you use socialism and communism as synonyms. — ssu

No, it has nothing to do with either. A fatuous remark.

I have no idea what you're talking about because it's poorly written. If you wrote better, then I would understand what you mean. Unlike you, who apparently values feigning understanding for some reason, I will admit when I have no idea what you're saying. But I deeply suspect, given this interchange, that the fault is with you. I'm happy to be proven wrong. A comment like the above isn't leading me to lean that way.

This is completely irrelevant. It's also anecdotal.
— Xtrix
Hardly. Price fixing simply doesn't work. What else is central planning that replaces the market mechanism? — ssu

Simply repeating "market mechanism" ad nauseam means absolutely nothing.

Lots of things replace the "market mechanism," as I've stated several times, if by "market mechanism" we essentially mean free markets. The Federal Reserve is the most "central planning" you can get. What they do effects the entire economy in extreme ways. What China does is also "central planning" -- massive involvement in the economy.

Mixed economies is what we have. No free market fantasies.

If you assume that having rules and legislation is "inteference", then I guess your idea that governments interfere all the time on every level is true. — ssu

It's not simply regulations, laws, or rules. Although that's significant enough. It's subsidies, tax incentives, tax breaks, government contracts, and bailouts. It's also, of course, monetary policy -- of which the "central" bank is in charge. Where is this elusive "free market" system in this scenario?

Yet how typically people understand government interference — ssu

"How typically people understand"? Well then typically people are completely misunderstanding.

Communism hasn't simply not worked. Marxism-Leninism didn't work. Maoism didn't work. Juche-ideology still doesn't work. — ssu

Capitalism hasn't simply not worked. Neoliberalism doesn't work. Keynesianism hasn't worked. Etc.
(And to emphasize this air-tight argument, I can point to slavery, frequent economic crashes -- some devastating, income inequality, monopoly, the government bailouts, too big to fail, financialization, outsourcing, worker layoffs, shutting down plants, union busting, hundreds of legal violations and criminal convictions, ...and on and on -- all while ignoring the good that's come of a mixed economic system. Not a great way to argue, but I'll simply continue to mirror what you're doing until you come to understand its absurdity.)

Besides, when you disregard the most successful and most popular branch of leftist thought (which is SO typical nowdays), then this is quite irrefutable. — ssu

It's so typical these days that people ignore the most successful/popular branch of leftist thought -- which is what, exactly? By ignoring this leftist thought, it makes the statement "Communism has never worked" irrefutable?

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

"Nicest" outcome would be just hotter summers and colder winters. — ssu

Yeah, I guess we can all believe what we want to believe. Personally I'd rather listen to the people who know what they're talking about. But that's me.

Take your housing example. The government doesn't "usually" interfere? What's "usually"? Of course they do -- nearly all the time. How?
— Xtrix
There is a perfect example of this from my own country — ssu

The government brought in price controls in the 1970's which basically crushed the rental market — ssu

Then the government deregulated the market. — ssu

And this is what many don't understand at all from the importance of a market mechanism. — ssu

This is completely irrelevant. It's also anecdotal.

So I'll repeat: government interferes all the time, on every level. There's no denying this. Whether this interference works out well or not is another question.

The "market mechanism" you refer to is more free market fantasy. So while you attribute the so-called successes of deregulation on the housing market, you apparently ignore another rather better example of deregulation: the crash of 2008. Deregulation caused the crash (small government), and then the companies that caused the crisis were bailed out (by big government). That's exactly the point, too. An excellent example of the results of neoliberal policies -- and the false consciousness of those who promote them.

Furthermore, there are some instances of "free markets" throughout the world and throughout history. Maybe Egypt or Greece? Even there it's dubious.
— Xtrix
Actually, modern Egypt — ssu

Given the reference to "throughout history," it should be fairly obvious I'm referring to antiquity. Modern Egypt and modern Greece are a different story.

is the perfect example why people are poor and stay poor in Third World countries: when a normal working family cannot get a loan to buy a house, no wealth is created when they have rent all their life a home. And once when people are poor and stay poor, there isn't that important domestic demand that would create jobs and growth. — ssu

Yes, and ask why they're poor in the first place, when they were a very wealthy country around the turn of 20th. Because textbook "capitalist" principles were forced upon them. So it's funny you should bring that up.

Or we could start with slavery in the US.
— Xtrix
And the US got rid of it in the 19th Century. Obviously not an inherent part of capitalism. — ssu

And China is no longer in famine, and are currently dominating us in growth. Obviously not inherently part of communism.

What is common to all is the implementation of socialist central planning that really didn't work. — ssu

It's as much attributable to socialism as it is to capitalism, if one is so inclined to define things that way. China and Russia also had very significant successes, which you will undoubtably ignore -- or will attribute to "capitalism," I suppose.

I'm not interested in defending the policies of China -- but I'm also not inclined to ignore the facts: they have a communist government that controls the market on levels even greater than the United States, and they're dominating us. So much for "communism" leading to nothing but famine and disaster. So then you try to either minimize these facts or else attempt to attribute them to "capitalism" -- which is completely absurd, on every level, even if you don't mean "free market capitalism" (which doesn't exist).

If China is beating us in growth -- shouldn't that mean they're MORE capitalist? Would anyone argue this? Quite a neat trick to pull.

As far as economic growth, China beats us by far in GDP.
— Xtrix
When you start from far poorer state, naturally growth is far more rapid. — ssu

China is not poor. They're the second biggest economy in the world. Their growth of 6% a year is more than the 2-3% for the US.

But I see where this is going with you: whatever happens that's good is capitalism, whatever happens that's negative is communism. Or else highlight the failures of the latter while ignoring the successes. So there's no reason in pretending to have a rational discussion. Stick with your dogma.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/09/climate/climate-change-report-ipcc-un.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

The big IPCC report— pretty sobering.

Looks like warming is already locked in and there’s no time to waste to prevent even worse effects.

We’re not alarmed nearly enough.

You have apparently discovered the secret to longevity. — Hanover

Being ignored for mindlessness.

There are no bad students, only bad teachers. So the saying goes.

People who believe weird things are all over the place. The efficient market hypothesis is a good example.

So to perhaps finish up this thread, I’d like to defend the claim that the most powerful force is dogma.

Whether the corporate sector or the state, there are human beings making decisions. These decisions happen against the background of attitudes, beliefs, perceptions — which are shaped by culture, but especially the educational and media systems.

Behind all of this, and the basis for religion and culture, are answers (tacit or otherwise) to universal human questions, but especially the question of questions— which defines philosophy: the question of being.

What is a human being? Human nature? Is greed the most important human characteristic? Are we simply self-interested entities trying to accumulate wealth? Are we creatures of God? The rational animal? Spirits? Minds?

What is good? What is happiness?

What *is*?

The government doesn't interfere all the time and everywhere. — ssu

That's like saying the law doesn't interfere all the time and everywhere. That doesn't mean we're lawless. Likewise, if one can point to instances where markets are somehow not influenced by government, that doesn't mean we have "free markets."

Housing prices, the prices of taxi cabs and many other prices are usually left alone. — ssu

Sure, and we're "left alone" sometimes too. When driving, and there's no police around -- for example.

Furthermore, there are some instances of "free markets" throughout the world and throughout history. Maybe Egypt or Greece? Even there it's dubious.

When it comes to countries and their governments, however, the state is always involved -- on every level. I can't think of a time in modern history where that isn't true. If you know of one, I'll be happy to look at it.

Take your housing example. The government doesn't "usually" interfere? What's "usually"? Of course they do -- nearly all the time. How? Through the control of interest rates and money supply. Whether and how banks are regulated matters a great deal. Look no further than 2008, not that long ago. Yes, the corporate world -- specifically the financial sector -- had a big responsibility themselves (perhaps a taste a "free markets"?). But it wouldn't have happened without government essentially allowing it.

Regardless, whether housing prices are up or down is very much a matter of fiscal and monetary policy.

The vast majority of companies and corporations are privately owned. The Western Mixed-Capitalism model is really different from China. — ssu

Different, not "really different." There's massive state influence here, there's massive state influence there. Both can be "capitalist" or "socialist," depending on what you want to believe.

Actually they worked just fine, by many metrics. They also had plenty of problems -- major ones. The United States has plenty of problems, too.
— Xtrix
Let's start with the famines in the US. How many have there been thanks to US economic policy been inflicted to the American people? — ssu

Or we could start with slavery in the US. As capitalist as it gets. Or the huge income inequality. Millions of Americans are in poverty, homeless, hungry or food-insecure (around 35 million). As far as economic growth, China beats us by far in GDP.

It's convenient to highlight the flaws, mistakes, and failures of other countries and ignore our own. To attribute the great Chinese famine to "socialism," but not slavery to capitalism, is an interesting trick -- but not worth taking too seriously.

There's massive state intervention in all "capitalist" societies, and nothing like the free market fantasies that ideologues have dreamt up. Capitalism is defined by private ownership of the means of production, usually, but is unique in its employer-employee relationship -- which is a better definition of it. Socialism, likewise, can mean state ownership of production. That's one strand, and one definition. A better one, in my view, is simply democracy at the workplace, where there's no employer-employee dynamic, and where the employees own and run the company democratically, as many co-op models demonstrate. Neither China nor the US has a system which is predominantly socialist, then. What actually exists is state-capitalism -- which is really just capitalists (employers, owners, especially organized in the form of the multinational corporation) more or less controlling the state. In China, one could argue the state has more power than the corporate sector, but the influences are there as well. They're just as capitalist as America, in this respect -- the difference being that the state runs things rather than the multinationals.

Hardly socialism. Or "pure" laissez faire capitalism.

https://media2.zuza.com/c/c/ccefe190-e407-42cc-99da-6d20340d415d/femalefitnessAsset_02.png

Interesting…

what do they stand for,
— Xtrix

Freedom — hope

:rofl:

The standard line of most people still stuck in capitalist propaganda. So it has to mean that. Why? Because socialism "never works." End of discussion.

They are ruled by the communist party. But magically, the gains they've achieved is "capitalism"?
— Xtrix
The official line is that they have 21st Century Marxism and it works just well as they aren't fixated to dogmatic principles or take Marxism as a religion. Others would say that it is government controlled capitalism as they do use the market mechanism and there is private property. — ssu

"Government controlled capitalism." That's state-capitalism, which is the only capitalism that exists. It's what exists in the United States as well. Government direction and interference on every level. No "free market" fantasies. So to attribute China's gains to "capitalism," despite their government being communist, is saying exactly nothing.

Yes, marxism-leninism, stalinism or maoism didn't work so well. — ssu

Actually they worked just fine, by many metrics. They also had plenty of problems -- major ones. The United States has plenty of problems, too.

The most vicious, most brutal, and most lethal of all, of course -- if this is the game we're going to play -- has to be capitalism, by far. So perhaps include that on your list of things that "haven't worked so well."

They really genuinely sucked. — ssu

I agree. Capitalism really, genuinely sucks too -- and in many ways is far worse.

You have even two countries with similar culture, heritage and history that were divided with one part being capitalist and the other socialist. These examples leave nothing in doubt. — ssu

They leave plenty to doubt -- about your depth of analysis.

Again, way not just point to "Venezuela"? Nice and easy, and no need to think. Throwing around terms like "capitalism" and "socialism," when you have no idea what they mean, is pointless. All that has existed is state capitalism, and there are many measures of what's considered successful or not, and many reasons for the successes or failures. If pointing to East/West Germany, calling one capitalist and the other socialist, really settles it for you -- then you're welcome to that.

So the fact that China's kicking our ass in growth means what exactly?
— Xtrix
It means that they changed their socialism to controlled capitalism — ssu

The standard line of most people still stuck in capitalist propaganda. So it has to mean that. Why? Because socialism "never works." End of discussion.

They are ruled by the communist party. But magically, the gains they've achieved is "capitalism"?

China, like the United States -- but more so -- directs and intervenes in their economy. Without state intervention, there would be no "capitalism."

There’s plenty of literature on the true history of development: Ha-Joon Chang, Alice Amsden, Robert Wade, many others. The fact that from England, to the US, to Europe and Japan and the recent Asian “tigers,” large-scale state intervention and radical interference with markets has been a leading factor in economic development. In the US it’s so extreme that it’s laughable.

Socialist central planning is literally doing away with the market mechanism. — ssu

China massively interferes with markets. As does the United States. The former has a communist government, the latter a republican government. China is outpacing the US in GDP, by far -- so that must be capitalism. Heads, I win; tails, you lose.

As I'll say a thousand times: free markets are fantasies. They don't exist. You're simply doing what all capitalist apologists do: when something succeeds, call it capitalism. When it fails, call it socialism. No matter the context or details or history.

What next? Pointing to Venezuela as an example of a "socialist nightmare"? I can hear the same thing on Fox News.

Capitalism has made few far more richer than others, but it also has improved our prosperity far more than central planning of socialism ever did. — ssu

So the fact that China's kicking our ass in growth means what exactly? That's not central planning? Or is that not socialism? We don't have "central planning" in the US? On the contrary, there is massive state intervention and direction in the economy, at all levels -- from the Fed on down.

Give me a break.

There is no alternative to present.
— NOS4A2

Build your own road and use that. — Isaac

Or go back to the Articles of Confederation. Clearly the idea is that being taxed is "confiscation of property," an old idea. In an ideal world, we would, as a community, pool our resources voluntarily to do things we cannot do individually. Wonderful. But this, like "free market capitalism" -- is a compete fantasy. It's never existed.

So why do people continue to hold to it? Because it's an easy slogan to remember, keeps things simple. Pure abstraction. But no connection to the real world of state-capitalism, and no understanding of history.

Again, you're dealing with a person who voted for Donald Trump.

Donald Trump. This is the level of intellect here. So don't be disappointed if you get exactly no where.

It’s true; I am operating on the assumption that a slave is chattel — NOS4A2

the conditions of slavery are not the same as the conditions of wage labor — NOS4A2

This admittedly common sense view of slavery, not as penetrating as your own no doubt, suffices for me to distinguish slavery from wage labor, and why I refuse to consider wage labor as wage slavery. As far as pejoratives go, it’s a weak and boring one. — NOS4A2

It's not a pejorative, it's a description of fact. Working for a wage is renting yourself -- your brains and muscles, time and effort -- for money. So simple even you can understand it. The rest is semantics. If you want to restrict "slavery" for chattel slavery, fine. The Republican party of the 1800s would disagree with you.

I don’t think it can be argued that slavery was voluntary or consensual, or that slaves should be blamed for their conditions, so we’ll just leave that one aside. — NOS4A2

They had the option to leave, just as the factory girl has the option to leave. There are repercussions for both. Since we're ignoring the latter, let's ignore the former as well. In which case: both are voluntary. In your world.

It’s true that leaving a job can lead to financial hardship, but then again it can prove beneficial. — NOS4A2

True, as can leaving a plantation.

surplus value is not equal to profits and wages are often paid in advance of revenue. That and the collapse of the labor theory of value renders the theory pretty useless. — NOS4A2

I never claimed "surplus value" is equal to profits. Whatever the worker is paid, it cannot possibly be more than what his or her production is worth. In that case, there'd be no business. There'd be deficits and bankruptcy. If that's too difficult for you, that's your problem.

The profits made by a company are generated by the workers of that company. The workers, in turn, have zero say in how those profits are distributed -- in a capitalist system, anyway. I'm against that, because I'm against illegitimate hierarchy and I'm in favor of democracy. You've now shown repeatedly you're not in favor of democracy. In which case, I'd say: go live in another country.

Your so-called “say in what the state does with taxes” is false. I wager you have not followed a single dollar of your taxes to any final destination. If you cannot know where it goes, you cannot have a say in where it goes. All you’ve done is hinged your servile hopes on the promises of politicians and bureaucrats, pretending that selecting from a rogues gallery of state careerists amounts to having a say in government. — NOS4A2

I realize, of course, that you're too silly to understand this, but I'll continue on:

We have a "say" in the state in a number of ways. One of those ways is voting, but there are others as well. The higher up the chain you get, the harder it is to have an influence. When it comes to what is done with taxes, we should vote in people who want to spend that money on programs we advocate for. I never said I could track my tax dollars. There's plenty to criticize the government for -- nearly all politicians are bought by the corporate sector, they're basically unresponsive to the needs of the majority of the population, etc. There should be more parties, and so on. We could go on about it. It should be more democratic, less influenced by special interests....

All of this is obvious. It's not about worshiping the state. The state should represent the people, and it really doesn't. That should change.

Now compare the state -- the government -- to the corporation, to capitalism. Is there democracy there? No. Is there any say in the decisions? No. Any expectation that they represent the "people" or their workers? No. Any worker vote for who make the decisions? No. Any say in what happens to the profits we all generate? No. Do you have free speech within a corporation? No. Democracy, your rights (voting, speech), etc., all out the window once you enter the workplace.

And yet, your religion says: the latter is the ideal. Government bad, capitalism good.

Why is this so? Who decided the female form was more alluring than the male? — Maximum7

It fluctuates in time. No one decides. It's cultural and historical. But I also sense that the female body has always been more alluring to males by the "design" of evolution. I don't know how true that is, but it seems pretty obvious.

The less abstract response: women are just more beautiful.

Can't argue with any of that. They bring their voters with them in their media, then when the voters get too insane, they're left with a dilemma: either be insane ourselves, or pretend to be so we can stay in power. They've mostly chosen the latter. And why? For what end? Simple: to gain even more power for the class they represent -- the corporate class. The Republicans are much more loyal to business than the Democrats are, and even the Democrats are loyal. The Dems also aren't being bought off by the worst type of scum in history: the fossil fuel industry. Worse than tobacco companies, by far.

So bring down the country -- kill people by denying pandemics, masks and vaccines; get people unnecessarily riled up and divided against the "liberal elites" as "Anti-American" or "Communists" or "Destroyers of America"; destroy the environment by acerbating climate change. All for more power.

It's incredible. Chomsky is right: "The Republican party is the most dangerous in human history."