This isn’t complicated this is one of the most simple and most visible mechanism in capitalism. Even Keynes seen that, just his answer was unfeasible for a prolonged periods.
But how do you prevent the ones who regulate it from being corrupted?
By setting up a system that don’t promote corruption nor require it, unlike capitalism which do.
Keynes answer was to make state regulate the above features of capitalism, but Keynes either from ignorance (hard to believe) or rather from utter idealism, ignored Marx and Smith analysis and warnings and put the regulation of capitalism in the hands of capitalist state. In effect, he tasked regulating those nastiest of men from OP quote to the very same men.
Recommended read: Lenin’s “Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism”
I really have to read it. But I don’t question that the state will be corrupted. My question is how that non-corruptive system can be created. That’s the tricky part.
Yes, it indeed is very tricky. For that there isn’t real universal answer except socialism (as system which don’t encourage nor require corruption) plus constant effort. Basically all socialist leaders wrote at least something about that. One of most notable examples is Xi Jinping, whose entire career is based on sucessful anticorruption activity on many levels of government.
What is human nature? If there is no obvious corruption then there can be hidden corruption. Socialist people could easily find each other and live together in harmony, but they don’t, which suggests that some coercion is needed.
With effort, capitalism can be maintained, too. Elect a party that taxes capital and maintain the balance.
Would Xi Jinping be elected if there wasn’t the threat of invasion and the existential need to avoid corruption?
If there is no obvious corruption then there can be hidden corruption.
Especially if you’re imprisoned in the preemptive inquisitorial mindset which leads you to dismiss any potential change because it might not be perfect, which is sadly the case in a lot of western leftists.
Socialist people could easily find each other and live together in harmony, but they don’t, which suggests that some coercion is needed.
We all live in class societies and you can’t just leave society, especially nowadays. And while you can try to chage it, by the means of revolution, there will be reaction. Recommended reading: Engels “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”, Marx “The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850” and “The Civil War in France”.
About coercion, what is needed first is the cessation of coercion and violence from capitalist states. So far, not happened anywhere, thus we need revolution.
With effort, capitalism can be maintained, too.
Not indefinitely. Capitalism require infinite growth but we only have finite planet. It is undoubtedly resilient system, as evidenced by its developing from ordinary capitalism into imperialism and then by several cycles inside the imperialism level, but eventually it will fall. Problem is, it will most likely kill all or most of us, destroy the planet and collapse entire civilisation. Thus we need to put a stop to it, the sooner the better.
Elect a party that taxes capital and maintain the balance.
As above, impossible. Again, Lenin’s “Imperialism…” and Marx book 1 of “Capital”. Last century is especially glaring example of complete failure of keynesian model, which wasn’t even really fully implement anywhere.
Would Xi Jinping be elected if there wasn’t the threat of invasion and the existential need to avoid corruption?
Now that would be a magical world without any hardships. Sorry, marxism don’t deal with that.
Capitalism doesn’t need infinite growth. That’s only needed if all interests are paid. Some creditors can fold. That’s where capitalists work, they have to pick or make the winners.
I wouldn’t give up on the majority maintaining a tax rate. Ignorance is paying off, so people don’t care but that can change. The question is how?
Inversely, I don’t believe that socialists are inherently less corrupt. My last paragraph was not about hardship but policy-altering threats.
If socialism needs them then it’s as dependent on competition as capitalism.
Wrong. Marx explains this and reality confirmes it all the time. What happens when the capital runs out of the roon for growth? It crashes in a crisis, simple as. Every decade or so, for the last 200 years. Crisis destroys some capital, leaving some room to grow in this place, but every time, countless human being suffer and the wealth gets even more concentrated. Also the profit margin is on average dropping.
That’s where capitalists work, they have to pick or make the winners.
And you say you don’t see the concentration of wealth as being inherent to capitalism? Someone wins, someone have to lose.
I wouldn’t give up on the majority maintaining a tax rate.
“Majority” don’t have power in capitalism. Capital has. For well known example, for how long majority of USA citizens wants public healthcare? Decades, and nothing happened. How long are people in most capitalist countries against austerity? Yet they are getting consecutive rounds of it, both in boom and in bust. Why are neoliberals in power almost everywhere in capitalist countries while being unpopular? Etc. etc.
Ignorance is paying off, so people don’t care but that can change. The question is how?
Yes, and we have ample historical proof people can take the power and use it in good way. Answer is socialism.
I don’t believe that socialists are inherently less corrupt.
They you believe wrong. Take out profit motive, that will took out most of it, by the definition.
My last paragraph was not about hardship but policy-altering threats. If socialism needs them then it’s as dependent on competition as capitalism.
This isn’t complicated this is one of the most simple and most visible mechanism in capitalism. Even Keynes seen that, just his answer was unfeasible for a prolonged periods.
The mechanism is simple. But how do you prevent the ones who regulate it from being corrupted?
I have to admit that I don’t know Keynes’ answer. If you don’t mind, could you give me some keywords for a search, please?
By setting up a system that don’t promote corruption nor require it, unlike capitalism which do.
Keynes answer was to make state regulate the above features of capitalism, but Keynes either from ignorance (hard to believe) or rather from utter idealism, ignored Marx and Smith analysis and warnings and put the regulation of capitalism in the hands of capitalist state. In effect, he tasked regulating those nastiest of men from OP quote to the very same men.
Recommended read: Lenin’s “Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism”
I really have to read it. But I don’t question that the state will be corrupted. My question is how that non-corruptive system can be created. That’s the tricky part.
Yes, it indeed is very tricky. For that there isn’t real universal answer except socialism (as system which don’t encourage nor require corruption) plus constant effort. Basically all socialist leaders wrote at least something about that. One of most notable examples is Xi Jinping, whose entire career is based on sucessful anticorruption activity on many levels of government.
What is human nature? If there is no obvious corruption then there can be hidden corruption. Socialist people could easily find each other and live together in harmony, but they don’t, which suggests that some coercion is needed.
With effort, capitalism can be maintained, too. Elect a party that taxes capital and maintain the balance.
Would Xi Jinping be elected if there wasn’t the threat of invasion and the existential need to avoid corruption?
https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/crash_course_socialism.md#history-and-human-nature
Especially if you’re imprisoned in the preemptive inquisitorial mindset which leads you to dismiss any potential change because it might not be perfect, which is sadly the case in a lot of western leftists.
We all live in class societies and you can’t just leave society, especially nowadays. And while you can try to chage it, by the means of revolution, there will be reaction. Recommended reading: Engels “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”, Marx “The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850” and “The Civil War in France”.
About coercion, what is needed first is the cessation of coercion and violence from capitalist states. So far, not happened anywhere, thus we need revolution.
Not indefinitely. Capitalism require infinite growth but we only have finite planet. It is undoubtedly resilient system, as evidenced by its developing from ordinary capitalism into imperialism and then by several cycles inside the imperialism level, but eventually it will fall. Problem is, it will most likely kill all or most of us, destroy the planet and collapse entire civilisation. Thus we need to put a stop to it, the sooner the better.
As above, impossible. Again, Lenin’s “Imperialism…” and Marx book 1 of “Capital”. Last century is especially glaring example of complete failure of keynesian model, which wasn’t even really fully implement anywhere.
Now that would be a magical world without any hardships. Sorry, marxism don’t deal with that.
Thanks for the link.
So many topics to reply, I pick the following.
Capitalism doesn’t need infinite growth. That’s only needed if all interests are paid. Some creditors can fold. That’s where capitalists work, they have to pick or make the winners.
I wouldn’t give up on the majority maintaining a tax rate. Ignorance is paying off, so people don’t care but that can change. The question is how?
Inversely, I don’t believe that socialists are inherently less corrupt. My last paragraph was not about hardship but policy-altering threats. If socialism needs them then it’s as dependent on competition as capitalism.
Wrong. Marx explains this and reality confirmes it all the time. What happens when the capital runs out of the roon for growth? It crashes in a crisis, simple as. Every decade or so, for the last 200 years. Crisis destroys some capital, leaving some room to grow in this place, but every time, countless human being suffer and the wealth gets even more concentrated. Also the profit margin is on average dropping.
And you say you don’t see the concentration of wealth as being inherent to capitalism? Someone wins, someone have to lose.
“Majority” don’t have power in capitalism. Capital has. For well known example, for how long majority of USA citizens wants public healthcare? Decades, and nothing happened. How long are people in most capitalist countries against austerity? Yet they are getting consecutive rounds of it, both in boom and in bust. Why are neoliberals in power almost everywhere in capitalist countries while being unpopular? Etc. etc.
Yes, and we have ample historical proof people can take the power and use it in good way. Answer is socialism.
They you believe wrong. Take out profit motive, that will took out most of it, by the definition.
What kind of competition do you even mean here?
I can send you some reading material. I think everything will start making sense as you read, and everything will become coherent.
Economics: Wage labour and capital, Value price and profit
Society: Imperialism, State and revolution
And in general feel free to browse the library the books I sent come from as well as the entire wiki!