On Bullshit Jobs

[Cindy]

As Colin pointed out, "they" are not Keynes. The Soviets mangled Marxist ideas into a nearly unrecognizable system, all while claiming to be communists. Same thing here. The purity of a theorist's thought is often lost in the process of political application.

[hippiewannabe]

I view Keynes as analogous to Freud; he's the father of modern macroeconomic theory, even if some of his ideas have been challenged over the years.

The main problem with Keynesian-ism as practiced is that it's a one-way street. Most politicians are happy to increase spending and/or cut taxes during a downturn, but they don't have the courage to reverse it and tap the brakes when times are good. So we end up with bubbles that inevitably burst catastrophically instead of being deflated gently.

[hippiewannabe]

...The Soviets mangled Marxist ideas into a nearly unrecognizable system, all while claiming to be communists. Same thing here. The purity of a theorist's thought is often lost in the process of political application.

Not really. Because Marxism calls for the use of violence to seize power, confiscate wealth, and force people to behave contrary to human nature, the rise of the most violent and extreme practitioners is inevitable. When Marx says the "dictatorship of the proletariat" will melt away, leading to the workers paradise, it's the same as the cartoon of the complicated project flowchart that has as its final box "and then a miracle happens". His theory might have been that they would somehow give up power and leave behind utopia, but Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al. is the predetermined end point of Marx's dream.

[Cindy]

I wasn't suggesting that Marxism would ever work, just that the Soviets disfigured it big-time. The Soviet version of Marxism can't be trotted out as a valid example of the theory.

The Soviets did get quite a lot right in terms of race and gender equality. But that's another story.

[hippiewannabe]

I wasn't suggesting that Marxism would ever work, just that the Soviets disfigured it big-time. The Soviet version of Marxism can't be trotted out as a valid example of the theory.

We agree for the most part. Stalin was particularly murderous and psychotic, but my point is, in practice Marxism can only be implemented in a ruthless police state, regardless of what Marx hoped.

[Cindy]

You're right. We do agree. The violence required just ruined his idea.

Cindy

[Amskeptic]

Did Marx advocate violence or did he note that humans being humans, violence is always a resort?

Capitalism has violence all over it, read about strikes at the turn of the century and the murder of Karen Silkwood.

[dingo]

Has capitalism ever existed anywhere ? perhaps in pockets in 19th century US....certainly not in the 20th century

[Amskeptic]

Has capitalism ever existed anywhere ? perhaps in pockets in 19th century US....certainly not in the 20th century

Has Marxism ever existed anywhere? perhaps in the imaginations of communist-hating fear-mongerers, but certainly not in any clean representative example.


So, once again, we live with imperfect executions of ideas, has not our imperfect example of capitalism shed the blood of innocents?
Colin

[hippiewannabe]

Did Marx advocate violence or did he note that humans being humans, violence is always a resort?

Go back and read Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto again. Not much difference between saying "violence is what we have to do" and "humans being humans, violence may be a last resort if all private property is to be taken and the existing social and political order is to be overthrown". When Mao and Stalin killed the landowners, merchants and intellectuals, they were following the plan.

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

[Lanval]

Has capitalism ever existed anywhere ? perhaps in pockets in 19th century US....certainly not in the 20th century

As a medievalist and sometime historian, I always wonder about these sorts of comments... YES! Capitalism existed. It lies in the origins of society itself, and was mercifully restricted by the needs of organized society. Total free will / Capitalism is an untenable abstract that cannot exist any more than any other platonic ideal. You have some strange notions, Dingo, and I would like to get more at the root of them. For example:

1. Why is capitalism the answer? Most intelligent people of the last several centuries (I'm going back to at least the Enlightenment, though I could just as easily deploy a range of classical and medieval examples that show the same thing) have argued that the end result of capitalism in its unfettered form (true freedom) would result, in Hobbes' terms

"In such condition [that is, one of absolute freedom], there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Do you feel that he is wrong? If so, how do you intend to limit the known flaws of mankind (greed, violence, short-sightedness, etc.)?

2. Why do you believe that there is some kind of financial "golden age" (I use that term purposefully) in which money operated outside of manipulation by the wealthy/elite? Why are you so convinced that the current financial system is a game of smoke and mirrors that will inevitably fail? When you suggest those things, particularly to me, when I am quite well versed in the history of money as a concept, and the complexities of open markets that work on a "gold standard" (an utter myth by the way) as well the current economic system, you sound like a crackpot. I've asked you before, and wonder if you would explain, in your own words ~ don't send me to a ranting semi-literate post please ~ why you think that "printing money" is somehow a scam?

I'm legitimately interested here, but it won't do to offer a up a couple of opaque quips and/or a link to a sketchy site run by someone who's arguing the world economy is a house of cards managed by a shadowy elite composed of Jewish bankers, Illuminati and Chinese oligarchs. I'd like a real explanation, simple, clear with examples. I wonder if that's possible here?

Thanks for hearing me out ~

Michael L

[dingo]

lets see...you accuse me of being a 'crackpot' with 'strange notions'...you dont like my short 'quips' or links to 'semi-literate rants'...you are entrenched in your own ideas about gold and capitalism, yet you somehow claim to be legitamately interested in getting to the root of my 'crackpot' and 'historically unfounded' opinoins....hmmmm.....i have come across your type before..overly defensive and dismissive from the getgo. What could i possibly gain from this type of discussion ? zero.

[Lanval]

You've misread what I wrote; in short, you're not providing enough information to support the out-of-left-field claims you make (as seen from what I call a mainstream perspective ~ not "right" just represented by the masses), so I'm unlikely to accept what you say as "truth" and neither taking cheap shots nor using arguments that aren't grounded in good evidence (i.e. an online rant posted somewhere) is going to persuade me.

Since, as you note above, you're not interested in educating me, and you act defensive and dismissive when I don't accept your values or ideas (which are by definition, fringe; that doesn't mean they're not true. It means they're not shared by the vast bulk of people) you come across as someone who just wants to reinforce his own sense of intellectual superiority (that statement coming from me just made Colin blow his milk out his nose, but I stand by what I said) and justify your callous disregard of others' opinions.

I won't say education in the formal sense is the only path to wisdom, by any means. However; constructive dialogue has to be built on some sense of shared agreement, even if that agreement is only the evidence/action/existence that is a starting point for larger analysis which may diverge radically. If you truly hold everything I see/believe/understand in utter contempt, unworthy of acceptance in any way in your worldview, then you're uninterested in meaningful dialogue. You just want to browbeat me... or others (nods at Cindy and her thoughtful and informed comments on economics).

From a larger perspective, I took a long time off from this part of this board (or any other like it in any forum) after I blew up at Colin last year; largely the question I sought to answer was: "Why do I take part in such things? What is it I want, and under what conditions am I willing to spend time on this." Having answered that question, and finding it unsatisfactory, changed how I do things, I have returned to do what I'm willing to do in this context.

In all seriousness, I expected exactly the reply I've received here. Rather than treat my question with any kind of understanding ~ rather than recognizing that the things you argue for, and the methods you use, are pretty strange to many people, and off-putting, you did pretty much what you've done in the past. Make some sharpish comments which are meant to suggest how much more thoughtful, insightful and superior you are, while not offering something I can hold onto and think about. I am, at least in theory, the audience you want to speak to, right? Someone to be shown a new way of seeing things, or thinking about things?

So I ask ~ can you give me a detailed, thoughtful answer that draws upon examples which I can understand as to why you believe the things you argue for?

Edit: In rereading this, I don't like it much. Too long, and still too invested in what I believe. I kind of want to delete it, but I guess not. I'm just going to say this, as the tl; dr version:

I *am* interested, Dingo, in your ideas. I want to hear them out. I'd like to see why you believe what you do ~ I don't want to express contempt (which I feel like I did, both responses) I want to embrace what you offer in an honest effort to see what you think is wrong here, and what you think will help.

ML

[Amskeptic]

lets see...you accuse me of being a 'crackpot' with 'strange notions'...you dont like my short 'quips' or links to 'semi-literate rants'...you are entrenched in your own ideas about gold and capitalism, yet you somehow claim to be legitamately interested in getting to the root of my 'crackpot' and 'historically unfounded' opinoins....hmmmm.....i have come across your type before..overly defensive and dismissive from the getgo. What could i possibly gain from this type of discussion ? zero.

Dingo, grab the questions and answer them. Set your personal interpretations aside for a moment. We almost have an insightful discussion.

Why is capitalism the answer?

Why do you believe that there is some kind of financial "golden age" (I use that term purposefully) in which money operated outside of manipulation by the wealthy/elite?

Colin