tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post5880387780571984422..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: What is communism?Larry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-16721534195453813552010-02-15T05:14:58.742-07:002010-02-15T05:14:58.742-07:00Thanks Hunt. I apologize for misconstruing your re...Thanks Hunt. I apologize for misconstruing your remarks.<br /><br /><i>To completely socialize the product of your labor...</i><br /><br />This is a <i>huge</i> element of propaganda. It's mostly bullshit, but some actions and statements of communists, socialists and especially <i>liberal</i> capitalists have contributed to its relevance.<br /><br />Extremely briefly: liberal capitalists typically want to perform income redistribution. Now, it's definitely the case that a lot of the surplus labor that capitalists collect as rent is distributed to the middle classes, and taxing the middle classes is, in a sense, socializing rent on capital. However it <i>feels like</i> one's <i>labor</i> is being distributed. And what our actions feel like really is important. It's ironic that the liberal capitalists use income redistribution to gain the benefits of socialism (some of them, at least) while still preserving capitalist privilege.<br /><br />The communist project is to cut out the middleman: <i>stop</i> socializing the products of labor and <i>start</i> socializing rent on capital.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-52983633142598144132010-02-15T03:28:24.073-07:002010-02-15T03:28:24.073-07:00He was indeed. But Rule #1, Hunt, is that only I g...<i><br />He was indeed. But Rule #1, Hunt, is that only I get to abuse my commenters.<br /></i><br /><br />Don't sweat it; I was actually trying to be humorous but obviously missed the mark. Chris, hugs and kisses. In reality, I understand "where you're coming from, man" You don't want other people to steal your coconuts, especially after after you've shimmied your butt up successive trees to get them. To completely socialize the product of your labor leaves you with few alternatives, either 1) submit to sharing your produce. 2) willfully truncate your effort. Neither of these are congruent to human nature, and this is the vulnerable spot where capitalists have always sought to throw the spear -- because greed and the will to dominance actually DO seem to be part of human nature. Or to put it a bit more charitably, we see incentive in furthering our own interests.<br /><br />At the same time, I do believe we have a better nature. Psychologists have found the desire for mutual wellbeing even in human infants. It's the ravages of social inequity that hardens us to seek gain solely for ourselves. So the wellbeing and welfare of others has intrinsic value that can even be indexed on an economic scale. People don't donate money to Haitian relief because it will further their own interests but because it's the right thing to do.<br /><br />The only remaining hurdle to counter is the predictable claim that to codify this sentiment politically requires coercion. Not necessarily; it only requires the mutual (democratic) realization that at times people require a little push to do good. They require a reason to act to their mutual best interest. Review our host's posts on The Prisoner's Dilemma. Rationality will only take society so far. To reach the optimal state (which is not an equilibrium) requires an extra push -- and that push is provided by government, the state.<br /><br />Luke, beware the Pareto suboptimal Nash equilibrium...always.Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03589253382301604435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-86769606333259057732010-02-14T18:54:59.054-07:002010-02-14T18:54:59.054-07:00But yes, Hunt, Chris #1 is indeed very much mistak...But yes, Hunt, Chris #1 is indeed very much mistaken, for the reasons you point out.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-87422650194911541092010-02-14T18:49:45.121-07:002010-02-14T18:49:45.121-07:00I think Chris Kline was addressing Chris Jackass
...<i>I think Chris Kline was addressing Chris Jackass</i><br /><br />He was indeed. But Rule #1, Hunt, is that only I get to abuse my commenters.<br /><br /><i>I won't call this disingenuous, I'll just call it wrong. I think the two are nearly equivalent.</i><br /><br />They are very different. Additional evidence might change my mind, but Chris #1 appears to be entirely sincere. As long as he remains polite and not egregiously stupid, I'm inclined to give him at least the benefit of the doubt.<br /><br /><i>Also, IIANM "capital" in the sense of communism means capital goods, e.g., factories, the means of production, not the idea that others have the right to the carrots you just pulled.</i><br /><br />You are not too far off the mark, although in modern capitalism, capital is mostly <i>financial</i>. Keep in mind, though, that the amount of lies and bullshit promulgated in the West about communism, capitalism and even basic economics is truly staggering. As long as someone is moderately polite and appears to show a modicum of good will, I would prefer to educate rather than condemn or insult.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-3459982572874165062010-02-14T17:39:38.456-07:002010-02-14T17:39:38.456-07:00I think Chris Kline was addressing Chris Jackass (...I think Chris Kline was addressing Chris Jackass (I jest; I will refer to him/her as Chris Burro). IMO the the case for socializing capital is once again the fact that economic oppression is just as potent as political oppression and often even more cruel and unjust.<br /><br /><i><br />Likening private control of capital to private control of power, the ability to compel a thinking, feeling person to do something they don't want to do, is disingenuous.<br /></i><br /><br />I won't call this disingenuous, I'll just call it wrong. I think the two are nearly equivalent.<br /><br />Also, IIANM "capital" in the sense of communism means capital goods, e.g., factories, the means of production, not the idea that others have the right to the carrots you just pulled.Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03589253382301604435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-7371540931710442252010-02-14T17:28:36.823-07:002010-02-14T17:28:36.823-07:00Chris #1: No worries. I just wanted to be sure I u...Chris #1: No worries. I just wanted to be sure I understood your intended meaning correctly.<br /><br />Chris #2: I see you were addressing Chris #1, not me. My mistake.<br /><br />Chris #1: Note that I do not treat power and capital as if they are identical. Rather, I draw an analogy: I claim they are <i>similar</i> in a meaningful and important sense.<br /><br />Naturally, I intend to argue the point further, but if you have any specific questions, now is a perfectly good time to ask them.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-48285932563050946892010-02-14T17:21:40.839-07:002010-02-14T17:21:40.839-07:00Yeah, "mistaken" would have likely been ...Yeah, "mistaken" would have likely been a better choice but I was in a hurry (if you didn't notice :-P).<br /><br />To Chris #2: I never even said power shouldn't be centralized; the point I was trying to make was simply that wealth and power are two different things and you should not treat them as one and the same. You can use either one to get the other, but they are not the same.Chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-65460359243347641512010-02-14T16:26:14.975-07:002010-02-14T16:26:14.975-07:00You say we should not centralize power because we ...<i>You say we should not centralize power because we are sapient.</i><br /><br />I didn't say we shouldn't <i>centralize</i> power, I said we did in fact <i>socialize</i> it: we changed our ideas about what it means to <i>own</i> political power. And I didn't say why we should or should not do anything about power because we are sapient. I said we would be <i>better off</i> if we were to socialize the ownership of capital.<br /><br />I will of course discuss in more detail why I think it would be better.<br /><br /><i>We control the raw power that individuals or groups might accumulate through the socializing of political power. There is no inherent reason we cannot do the same thing with capital.</i><br /><br />Well said! We are in close agreement on this point.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-87240728785307554592010-02-14T16:18:33.378-07:002010-02-14T16:18:33.378-07:00Chris, (I am a different one)
You say we should n...Chris, (I am a different one)<br /><br />You say we should not centralize power because we are sapient. Why do you believe this, other than that is your preference? I happen to agree, but for different reasons. In any case, one could (and throughout history, in fact, people did) argue that since everything that we do in the world we do through the exercise of power, therefore we should leave it to those who have shown the talent to accumulate power to exercise it in the way they wish.<br />The exact same argument is made today to excuse the excesses of capitalism. Even if you are one who holds that a true free market will work against an unfair accumulation of capital, all you have to do is look at how, throughout history, power accumulates in the hands of the few to understand why capital will always tend to accumulate in the same way. We control the raw power that individuals or groups might accumulate through the socializing of political power. There is no inherent reason we cannot do the same thing with capital.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-14906732499048223772010-02-14T13:08:09.384-07:002010-02-14T13:08:09.384-07:00Not that I wish to engage in a shouting match with...<i>Not that I wish to engage in a shouting match with someone who reserves the right to verbally abuse commentors...</i><br /><br />Not to worry, I abuse only jackasses. The problem is that jackasses never think that they actually are jackasses, so it's easier just to reserve the arbitrary right than to descend into the hell of legalism.<br /><br />You're not a jackass (at least not yet <wink>) so you have nothing to fear.<br /><br />I do, however, disagree with your position, which I will get into in more detail at a later time.<br /><br /><i>Likening private control of capital to private control of power... is disingenuous.</i><br /><br />I do not think you are using the word <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disingenuous" rel="nofollow">disingenuous</a> correctly here; disingenuous means "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity". I think you might mean "mistaken" or "loony".Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-80481898837798723762010-02-14T11:04:07.900-07:002010-02-14T11:04:07.900-07:00Not that I wish to engage in a shouting match with...Not that I wish to engage in a shouting match with someone who reserves the right to verbally abuse commentors, but your analogy between power and capital doesn't hold true: people decided power should not be centralized because power is the control of sapient beings; capital is the control of things which work must be done to acquire.<br /><br />The private control of capital is just a way to attempt ensure that people get the products of their labor in a form desirable to them. Likening private control of capital to private control of power, the ability to compel a thinking, feeling person to do something they don't want to do, is disingenuous.Chrisnoreply@blogger.com