/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9669175
I'm very interested but I don't really have a background besides the lower division econ courses
Ordered a copy of Shaikh's capitalism recently and I want to see marx rigorously redeveloped with modern mathematics, especially regarding falling rate of profit and the transformation problem, but it's not really a popular /sci/ topic

>>9669175
Cockshott is a cool guy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGBQwZsp3T0&t=90s&ab_channel=PaulCockshott

>>9669175
What failures of capitalism? Failures only arise when government takes over where the private sector should be in charge.

>>9669175
Not science or math
GTFO
>>>/pol/ >>>/his/

This approach is ill founded. You can not categorize political economy like that. Marx is an indelible shitstain on humanity for thinking communism could ever be achieved unless there weren’t any evil

>>9669506
example: the market failure to incentivize finding solutions for:
>climate change
>rare diseases
>poverty
>opioid epidemic
etc etc

>>9669175
Science is ultimately indifferent to the morality and ethics of a political system.
In capitalism, big business can hire scientists to say sugar is good for you, or to endorse a certain product.

In socialism, the government pays scientists to encourage people to like their government or call anyone going against the status quo mentally ill

Science is a tool, but has limitations

>>9669666

Possible market solutions

> climate change
Reduce barriers to entry in the automotive industry, allowing more competitive companies which will find alternative fuel sources to differentiate their product.
Use common law practice to solve pollution instead of courupt government agencies. ( companies are sued for polluting instead of bribing the FDA)
Elon musks mars project, colonizing mars could reduce surplus population reducing carbon footprint.

>>9669666
Rare deseases

Supply meets demand.
If there is a demand for cures
Scientists will work to find cures for cash, and many do.
Do you think the scientists who did make cures did it out of the kindness of their hearts?

>>9669666
Poverty

1. Reduce barriers of entry, making it easier for more people to start businesses, this will allow people to create more jobs, and more jobs means less unemployment, and a surplus in available jobs also raises wages, also lower prices on stuff.


Market voulontary eugenics
Pay people not to have kids if they have poor genetics. Charities have existed in the past that have done this. ( not a personal fan of this, but is a market solution)

>>9669574
Marxism is anti scientific, assumes all humans are equal and interchangeable.

>>9669705
This is probably the only good post in the thread.

Why can't people talk about economics without bias? To move away from the current system is always the idea of any important economist, regardless of their school.

The reason this is, is that economics is not politics. Scientifically, there is a correct way to manage an economy, depending on what you want to do politically. You see the point?

If you're going to post on the /sci/ board about economics please post about something calculus related, like the how partial differentials are related to an indifference curve, or how you can use hyperspace vector analysis to determine good distributions around a dense utility area.

If you want to get on a soapbox about economics, go to /lit/ or /his/

>>9669375
You might be interested in this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WBdKZddeOk

Cockshott seems to be the only one working on Marxian econophysics.

>>9669506
>muh free market fundemantalism
>muh taxes is theft
Move to Somalia where you have to hire mercs to be your personal police. It's a libertarian utopia.

>>9669574
This is not an argument. Marx simply observed that there were contradictions intrinsic to Capitalism and its dominant mode of production and concluded that it is unsustainable. He didn't speculate much about how a post-capitalist society would work at all and focused on understanding the mechanics of Capitalism, albeit from a class-relations perspective rather than supply-demand curves, etc. (micoeconomics).

Marxist theory when done right is pretty analytical and the closest thing to scientific reasoning in the social sciences.

>>9669705
>Science is ultimately indifferent to the morality and ethics of a political system.
Sure, but the insights that science can help us reveal the mechanics of such a system, our biases and ultimately inform how we build society. For example, this research found that promoting people randomly rather than on merit increases the efficiency of an organisation (https://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0455).).

Similarly, they found that random funding strategies for research yield better results than funding based on previous performance: https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07068

Also Piketty's work has some pretty damning conclusions that have wide implications. Since all these insights can affect the efficiency of a society or civilization, I'd argue that they should be viewed as an engineering problem.

>>9669735
/his/ and /lit/ don't seem to be technical enough for this sort of discussion. Too much ideology.

Remind me when philosopher tried to include mathematical concept in their rhetoric in the 60's, kek

>>9669506
As much as I support the free market, even people like me understand that without a strong and responsible government there would be a myriad of social problems either neglected or more often perpetuated by private business.
The profit motive encourages competition and economic growth. It doesn't however encourage social responsibility or ethics, in some cases quite the contrary (healthcare and pharma.)
So stop being a faggot and educate yourself, it's not a binary or zero-sum issue.

>>9669718
>Reduce barriers to entry in the automotive industry, allowing more competitive companies which will find alternative fuel sources to differentiate their product.
So government funding programs. Not really a market solution since public funding has no expectation of profit to be returned.

>Use common law practice to solve pollution instead of corrupt government agencies. ( companies are sued for polluting instead of bribing the FDA)
Again, not a market solution. Also how do you technically magic corruption away?

>Elon musks mars project, colonizing mars could reduce surplus population reducing carbon footprint.
The best way to reduce our global carbon footprint is to colonise mars?? Dafuq.

>>9669723
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/curing-disease-not-a-sustainable-business-model-goldman-sachs-analysts-say/
>We can cure diseases, but it's not profitable to do so.
>We can solve mass transit, but it's not profitable to do so.
>We can solve housing crisis, but it's not profitable to do so.
>We could research future science and tech instead of building Snapchat, but it's not profitable to do.

Capitalism is clearly super efficient and the best system to maximise utility.

>>9669731
>1. Reduce barriers of entry, making it easier for more people to start businesses, this will allow people to create more jobs, and more jobs means less unemployment, and a surplus in available jobs also raises wages, also lower prices on stuff.
So again, government funding is a non-market solution.

Also, in a market consumer demand creates jobs ultimately, not businesses: you need people with high enough wages that are willing to buy the product/service BUT wages have an inverse relationship to profits. So if wages stagnate, profits rise until people can't afford to buy the products in which case you have a crash. Only Marxian economics predicts this using this simple model.

>>9670188
Reducing barriers to entry is not government funding, but reducing government red tape in the way of people starting business. Try opening up a legal lemonade stand in the us and you will understand what I am talking about.
As for health and damage risk, it can be solved in common law courts instead of commercial code.

>>9670188
And without people willing to supply demand, there is no supply. There are many countries with high demand, but due to regulation and corruption lack supply.
Many starving Africans, no supply

>>9670180
You can have both
An armed citizenry can keep the government in check keeping them from tyranny
And a common law system can inforce social responsibility through civil suits. ( if a corporation is dumping sludge in your river, you take them to court either to pay damages, or to seise and desist.)
And stare desis will allow courts to move faster because the will rule the same for the same issues

An open competitive market is also good because no company is to big to fail. If a company goes bankrupt, another one will take its place.

>>9670113
We have evidence that genetics determine the outcome of a persons life.
People with better genes do better generally than people with bad genes.

Based on the science of genetics, should we castrate or euthanize people with bad genes ( ie the mentally retarded, alcoholics, criminals, etc)?

Where does the science stop and the ethics begin?

>>9669723
>dude those rare diseases aren't cured because all the people with them just don't demand a cure lmao
how autistic do you have to be to believe this

>>9670113
>Marxian econophysics
this is as ridiculous as anything in gender studies

>>9670972
what if the alcoholic gene is also the science gene?

>>9670953
>government red tape
"first world problems"
can you imagine crooked liberals don't want to wear a gas mask when they go outside?

You can deal with annoying problems like licensing engineers, paying inspectors, meeting building codes, filling out paperwork, being liable for damages, etc.
Or you can move to china or bangladesh or whatever, where they're having a new factory collapse or explode every quarter with hundreds dying each time because there's no accountability, no safety standards, nothing

i'm gonna jump in2 this politics debate. All the problems on earth are due to the government. Government limits businesses, what are businesses based upon? Discovery. There is a distinct class of people, not based on their race or their "mental illness" or sex that do not want to be alive. These people take actions that are not only suicidal, but homicidal too such as not doing any ecological research before dumping sludge.
Aristotle was the epitome of great scientist. Though he made his errors, he was correct in his methods & also in his ethics: he learned about humanity & learned all of science of the time.
The process is to read books & listen to people who have more experience than you, then, judge their character, when you have all the information or when there is an impending threat to life to take action.
We have uninformed voters. The suicidals in government who perpetuate compulsory education sold their lives to the murderers among us, because that's not all the information there is-their sin is two fold: not studying science & immorality. There r two chances for life to go on: the suicidals remove themselves by making suicidal legal, or a totalitarian government that shoves the entirety of the knowledge of physics & biology down a person's throat. We could never get this perfect government because of the inbetweens who do not desire to live or die, they hate WORK
The reason the world flourished was the abolition of slavery

>>9670992
Look at ALL the discovery since the abolition of slavery in America, which has never fully developed. We've turned lead into gold

>>9670977
I didn’t say people don’t demand cures, if things are left to themselves, suppliers will aim to meet that demand.

There are other factors that can get in the way.
1. People raise money for the sake of raising money( people feel good giving to charity, wether or not they are qualified) solution: vet your charities and know the scientists working for them.
2. Governments don’t want a cure (get your tinfoil hats) but the truth is countries like Japan encourage smoking because without cancer, the people there live forever and it’s an island. Solution: private industry can do it in a lazzefair system
3. Scientific limitations (people were working on flying machines in the Middle Ages, it took a long time to accomplish an air plane

>>9670987
Isn’t China a socialist country, why are they having so many explosions?

>>9670982

Common Morty, *lets go get some science juice

>>9671005
they're basically republicans

>>9671011
No not really, they don’t go to war for isreal

>>9671014
Trump is a totalitarian
He would be a republican is he asked for volunteer fighters & volunteer resources for those fighters & appealed to big business.
He didn't remove all taxes, in fact he's been putting up walls for businesses.

>>9671029
A politician who gets paid by compulsory taxation is, always, in fact, a non-anarchist by definition, and also a social (non-economical, though also economical, that is) totalitarian

In fact, government is non-scientific at its core; never once in history has there been a totally informed, totally cooperative republic. The state of government is that you get to make choices for others, though every scientists knows the contents of a person's mind can't be measured.

a democrat says you have to give your life for people's happiness, a republican says you have to give your happiness for your life. But your life without happiness is misery, your happiness without your life does not compute. Ask yourself, WHY?-WHY DO THEY BELIEVE THIS? The secret truth is they DON'T BELIEVE IN ANY ULTIMATE GOOD, they don't believe in LOVE.

>>9671063
The fact is, free will exists! I'm not going to give the proof again, but search the archives. It is my creation: I give you permission to find it. Because of the non-symmetry of the universe, man's relationship to others is a non-contradiction.

>>9671067
BEWARE: when you give the proof, people will use my inherited invention that pain & unhappiness are of different axi, I should never have released this knowledge into the world for people will say "Rape is ok" & "It's ok to torture him because he loves me."

>>9671084
the truth is a rapist is incapable of being loved, because they consider not theory of mind and are a parasite THEY ARE THE SAME AS the projector who doesn't have theory of mind

>>9671029
He’s more civic nationalist than totalitarian

Republican is a blanket term
One could also be for republics but not a republican

>>9671005
they call it a "socialist market economy"
it IS subject to market forces. it boils down to a capitalist system with an extra heaping of corruption on top.

that's why china is ultra-polluted right now; companies just dump shit into the air and water with no regard. food is grown in soil fertilized with human excrement (efficient! who cares about a few infections?).
Because let's make MONEY, fuck all these annoying regulations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swill_milk_scandal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal
As you can see China now is where we were back in 1850. America's very first food regulation law came out of the swill milk scandal. And yet we have children who refuse to study history but think they've got some unprecedented genius ideas to share.

>>9671239
Yeah it sucks that all of these socialist countries end up practicing consumerism after 30-40 years, I wonder why this always happens. Could it be that Marxism ends up making people starve to death and they will end up taking any job to survive, but hey real communism hasn’t been tried.

Btw not a capitalist, I’m a nationalist who believes that a market economy is optimal.

>>9670188
>We can cure diseases, but it's not profitable to do so.
>We can solve mass transit, but it's not profitable to do so.
>We can solve housing crisis, but it's not profitable to do so.
>We could research future science and tech instead of building Snapchat, but it's not profitable to do.

>Capitalism is clearly super efficient and the best system to maximise utility.

This is coming from a retard who doesn't understand devoting all resources to ****one**** thing, means devoting less resources to other things.

WAAAHHHHH the world isn't IMMEDIATELY solving the problems """""I""""" (ME ME ME) find important.
Gotta kill off those Ukrainians to solve that world hunger problem, eh anon? A calculated cost.

>>9670977
It's ALMOST like society has more than ONE problem (that YOU think is most important) to solve! Amazing! aint it?
It's ALMOST like society faces costs and benefits with EVERYTHING! WOAW! Mind blown! I know!

>>9671063
What is love?
Baby don’t hurt me no more.

In all seriousness

Love defined by St Thomas Aquinas means willing the ultimate good for people.
Not willing the ultimate happiness, or the most wealth.

But a society of love would be a society that the best outcome the people of that society. Not trying to make everyone the same or the weak fearing the strong.

>>9669666
>>opioid epidemic
that's a result of government intervention / regulated market

>poverty
not a failure of capitalism, but a lack thereof

>rare diseases
are you kidding me?

>climate change
that one I give you, though it hasn't yet played out as catastrophic and might create a market for a solution.

>>9669175
bad idea: the free market already functions already as a search algorithm in an ever changing search space. any engineered solution will most likely fail due to lack of adaptability / bad modelling

think of capitalism as genetic algorithm searching for what people want (which otherwise is hardly quantifiable)

>>9669175
Its shit, anyone with half a brain could realize that.

>>9671239
This is what I don't get as a non-American. I think all the best things about the US is the government policy, institutions and regulations. For example, Chapter 11 bankruptcy allows corporations a 2nd chance to not got insolvent. Also, while its social welfare isn't as great as other rich nations, it's still quite a large, substantial project. The fed also tends to step in quite often to correct market failures to protect people ultimately (though the efficacy of its policy is questionable sometimes). Some great things have come out of NASA, DARPA and other federal funded research. I think the US is far more socialist than people make it out to be and that's what makes it great.

And yet people so ideologically blinded and hellbent on viewing everything from neoclassical economic worldview (i.e. free market fundamentalism). That all regulation is bad and a surefire way to become a communist dictatorship.

>>9669175

the stock market is not a game, and it was never meant to be gamed. but people game it

the DOW is an index, not an animal

the "economy" is also not an animal

>>9669175
Capitalism is the application of science to the economy. It has not failed, it has been wildly successful

>>9674059
>Capitalism is the application of science to the economy.

>>9674145
Capitalism was the creation of allying scientific enlightenment thinking to the economy. it has ushered in humanity's greatest era, and dramatically improved human life in basically every aspect

>>9674145
he's one of those religio-capitalist zealots. he likes to consume. believes its his god given right to stuff his face.

>>9674059
It's simply a phenomenon.

Scientifically, economics has no state function. It exists to explore, explain, and even help understand certain mathematical ideas.

>>9674171
What does religion have anything to do with my statement?

>>9674181
We don't know, the /pol/tards and Marxists ruin any sort of genuine scientific discussion.

Anyone ITT read pic related or Irving Fisher or Leon Walras? All really great economic scientists.

I'm on the Appendix to pic related, it is just simply equation heavy, but it feels like he doesn't define terms sometimes. Overall though, a great complex read.

>>9674177
>Scientifically, economics has no state function
Abstract labor power in the LTV behaves just like a state function. When you do work, you're doing "work," and modern solutions to the transformation problem ensure this is a meaningful quantity given its relation to equilibrium pricing.

There's no state function in the neoclassical approach because the neoclassical approach prides itself on being unscientific.

>>9675305
>Abstract labor power in the LTV behaves just like a state function. When you do work, you're doing "work," and modern solutions to the transformation problem ensure this is a meaningful quantity given its relation to equilibrium pricing.

I love you. But you should qualify what you mean by neoclassical approach prides itself in being unscientific.

I thought they whole point of neoclassicists is that they try to rigorously prove that all economic phenomena is a result of supply-demand dynamics through linear regression?

>>9674059
Depends on how you evaluate it's success. Industrialisation has indeed led to the biggest growth in human history (even Marx praised Capitalism's cosmopolitanism and immense productive capabilities). But the way in which we produce and distribute goods and services (Capitalism) has a lot of problems that economists are trying to understand:

- Is there really such a thing as an equilibrium in a free market economy?

- If so, why all the crashes and booms?

- Capitalism has a high correlation with income and wealth inequality. Is this a feature of Capitalism itself (Marxist) or due to external influences on the market (neoclassical), or is it just an imperfect mechanism that requires a little greasing now and then through fiscal policy to work properly (Keynesian)?

- How can we deal with non-market externalities in a market economy such as the environment?

Blindly defending an economic system simply because it's the one we're in is a fallacy. At best Capitalism should be regarded as a local optimum.

>>9674177
this. economics MUST be descriptive not prescriptive. markets, prices, wealth, etc are emergent phenomena that can't be policy-ed into being. most modern economists are charlatans because they think economies can be constructed from the bottom up, like a machine. fundamentally flawed approach.
The same way scientists don't attempt to manipulate nature to fit their models, economists shouldn't manipulate economic systems to fit their's.

>>9675305
>Abstract labor power in the LTV behaves just like a state function.
The LTV is an indeterminate equation with more independent variables than equations (two to one). It's mathematically unsolvable.

>There's no state function in the neoclassical approach because the neoclassical approach prides itself on being unscientific.
Neoclassical economics is heavily scientific. They do accept the LTV, but this is at ends with marginal economists who use utility curves to construct determinate matrices of equations representing the collective of supply/demand. These recursive systems help very much with understanding how price is both a phenomenon of subjective utility AND a collection of the costs of production at the same time.

>>9669666
>climate change
the only good point. also include superexplotation of resources

>>9675378
>I thought they whole point of neoclassicists is that they try to rigorously prove that all economic phenomena is a result of supply-demand dynamics through linear regression?
Rigor becomes meaningless when your axioms fail to correspond to reality. Neoclassical economics exists in a space of sterile abstraction. Individual agent indifference curves don't correspond to how we actually choose goods and services, for instance, and it's not at all clear how to "aggregate" them to several agents in a mathematically consistent/well-defined way

>>9676895
>The LTV is an indeterminate equation with more independent variables than equations (two to one).
lol what

>>9669666
free market literally does a better job with all of this. if the government wasnt in the way and giving coal subsidies and fighting wars for oil we'd be using 100% renewable energy by now

>>9674059
capitalism has done wonders to lift millions of people in india and china from poverty. it has done this faster than any other economic system in history. capitalism's success is undeniable at this point. there's a reason why countries start to free the markets in order to be more successful; because it works.

>>9670972
>alcoholics
https://newrepublic.com/article/115802/intelligence-and-drinking-studies-say-theres-correlation

>>9677041
>free trade
China succecfully embraced mercantilism.
Now its GDP is nearly triple that of India.
Stop talking.

>>9677041
Except for that time Russia rapidly industrialized an almost entirely undeveloped agrarian society to where they put the first man in space less than fifty years after overthrowing the Tsar, of course. The US lost all the major milestones in the space race except for the moon landing itself, and that was accomplished by a massive and unprecedented expansion of the public sector's role in research spending.
And of course Meiji Japan, which used government-sanctioned/sponsored multi-vertical monopolies with banking subsidiaries to spearhead an extremely rapid "crony" capitalist development to transform the nation from an undeveloped backwater about to be imperialized by the west (a la opium wars) into a western-style imperial/colonial power with possessions in Korea and China and a major victory against Russia, fifty years after Commodore Perry and the unequal treaties. Japan was a major participant in WW2 as a direct result of this development, which produced Japanese capital's new geostrategic interests and the means to assert them on the world stage.
Planned economics

>capitalism has done wonders to lift millions of people in india and china from poverty
Sure, but that's a function of technological and industrial development, as I've gone into above.
>countries start to free the markets in order to be more successful
This isn't true in the sweeping thematic sense you intended, where the fuzzy idea of "freer markets" corresponds directly to an improvement of everything. What is true is that policy economics has moved away from the Keynesian consensus in recent years because the kind of interventions it prescribed stopped being effective. Which is a strike against Keynesian interventions specifically, and not all market interference or all challenges to private property as a heterogeneous whole. It especially bears mentioning that Pinochet's Chile was outperformed by Allende's on every single macroeconomic metric of note except for inflation.

>>9677135
(cont)
Libertarians will even admit, when cornered, that by the "economic miracle of Chile" they refer not to any improvement in economic condition, but to the fact that eventually the military junta ended and was replaced by another democratic government - which, of course, they attribute to the power of free market policies to bring about freer societies.
You could say there's a pretty strong note of irony and intellectual dishonesty in those points nonetheless

>>9676849
chemistry MUST be descriptive not prescriptive. structure, reaction, mechanism, etc are emergent phenomena that can't be lab-ed into being. most modern chemists are charlatans because they think chemical phenomena can be constructed from the bottom up, like a machine. fundamentally flawed approach.

>>9677135
So if you manage to send people to space but not feed millions of people it is a good system? Should we ignore all that because of some rockets in space?

>>9677135
>planned economics
yeah that plan worked out really well.
you forgot to mention the tens of millions of death due to famine in the 30s and the loss of thirty million soldiers in WW2. The soviets couldn't even organize a military, let alone an economy. But sure, things started going great after they got rid of a tenth of their population... because of the support they got from the United States in the Marshal Plan. All that success during the space race? yeah that was during Khrushcev's Thaw which relaxed some of the more retarded tenets of communism. Of course, that success wouldn't last.after the soviet's space war loss (you got the first doggo up there tho, communism is truly amazing) where everyone collectively thought "they finally closed the gulags! fuck this work shit senpai" and it was all downhill from there

>>9677196
not seeing your point. are you agreeing with me? everything you said there is true

the only reason socialists challenge capitalism is because the idea of hierarchies terrifies them. it just has to be true that everyone is equally potentialled. socialism is brattiness masquerading as a political philosophy.

>>9677250
I didn't say it was a good system. I gave it as an example where a planned economy "did wonders to lift millions of people in from poverty, faster than any [previous] economic system in its history."
If you don't like the soviet system, you should be satisfied that >>9677041 is a fairly low bar to clear, especially as the mechanism of technological advance and industrial development seems to almost always make the poor a little better off, regardless of how resources and labor are actually coordinated.

>>9677382
>it just has to be true that everyone is equally potentialled
Lenin demolished this strawman a hundred years before you were born
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm

>>9677390
But it did not lift millions of people out of poverty? If it such a low bar to clear why do communists and socialists always fail at it?

>>9677390
lol i knew you'd reveal yourselves with this bait. take note everybody. socialism IS just a pathway to utopian marxism. no socialist will admit it outright, so you have to coax it out of them.

if you're poor its because your iq low. its what the data shows. you'd think a board that is /sci/ence driven would concede this. the evidence is mounting. what will the socialists do when their hierarchy-less utopia reveals itself to be a fraud?

>>9677343
wow, you have everything figured out

so cool!

>>9677406
What is this schizophrenic talking about?

>>9677390
>a hundred years before you were born
WHOA. something was said before I was born by some butthurt douchebag in russia??? Well then its GOTTA be true!!

>>9677413
>fallacies stop being fallacies when people that i don't like call them out

>>9677412
tell me, how do you propose to fulfill the dictates of your religion? I'm never going to give you subhumans my shit voluntarily

ever since science became popular economists have tried to claim economics was science. its a new phenomena.

>>9669175
Social Science is not real science

>>9677416
>muh fallacies
i automatically don't respond to posts that link me to another site. it's the most predictably inane of all liberal argumentative techniques

>>9677412
I think he's trying to claim that fat people are really good at acquiring greasy food, which makes them smart.

Problem with all this talk of "just get rid of gubmint and everything will be golden!", kinda misses the point as to how we got to where we are to begin with.

If there isn't a government to serve the private market's interests, the more powerful groups within the market will inevitably conspire to create a power structure that serves the same function (as we see whenever a large corporation, hungry for resources, enters a backwater nation with a non-functioning government.) Similarly, you see merchant monopolies forming mafias and even defacto militaries to keep their monopolies as far back as antiquity.

So either you need mystically incorruptible government that prevents this, or a mystically principled culture that refuses to practice such corruptions.

Sans magic, or genetic engineering to change human nature (in which you'd almost certainly lose something critical in the process), I've no clue how to go about fixing this. I suppose some sort of systems of diametrically opposed checks and balances would mitigate it for awhile, but eventually, one group is going to have too much influence over the others.

Money gathers power, and power gathers money, like a self-feeding cycle like unto matter and gravity, until you get a black hole (and even if it isn't money, it's something else). What seems like enlightened self interest from one perspective looks like a gorged vampire from another. Short of an unbiased outside god-like force, or the aforementioned, I don't know how you go about defeating that cycle.

>>9677390
>>9677412
>>9677416
>>9677423
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw-FF6CPmvs

>>9669175
Anyone trying to bring back socialism or communism is an enemy to human liberty and prosperity.

>>9677435
see >>9677434

>>9677424
A slightly altered moral code along with some changes in the way resources are distributed would do a lot to alleviate the stress. A guaranteed minimum/maximum income would provide incentives to work and alleviate poverty. Also a social taboo on unnecessary consumerism (consumption of resources) in addition to having more than 2 kids per couple to prevent population growth would help as well. Remove competitive pressure on people and they'll stop becoming desperate enough to commit crime. Obviously humans are far too stupid to make either of these works - I'll get a few (You)'s from /pol/ retards calling me a commie.

>>9677424
Its a primal instinct with us since our ancestors first evolved to crawl out of the muck to live on land. Reptilian competitive drive + modern technology = extinction. If we can't collectively overcome deeply ingrained instincts that for millions of years we needed to keep us alive, we'll go extinct. Quite the paradox...

>>9677420
>i automatically don't respond to posts that link me to another site
>actually responds twice, just without an argument
kek. never play defense, right /pol/?

>>9677424
>So either you need mystically incorruptible government that prevents this, or a mystically principled culture that refuses to practice such corruptions.
Not really. Rather than look for a future in which people don't respond to incentives/rational self-interest, which is absurd, you should look to a state of things where rational incentives aren't accumulation of market power and violent suppression of competitors/workers. Such a society would of necessity have workers' ownership of the means of production and no bourgeoisie, but other than that what it would look like is baseless speculation.

>>9677457
>deliberately misinterprets what I said because he doesn't have a point
Here, I'll rephrase it for you: I don't respond to stupid arguments, other than to call them stupid

>>9677457
also
>the consensus on sci is socialism
kys

>>9677465
Never play defense

>>9669175
if you don't do anything about crazy retards they'll remain in power no matter what bullshit system you try to shove around

any system that doesn't have an intelligent way to remove crazy greedy retarded fuckers from being involved is DOOMED TO FAILURE, period
>lack of technocratic thinking
no
its the lack of skepticism, the sheer number of gullible idiots who cannot be trusted with anything more important than a sippy cup, that is the problem

go back to /pol/
ignorance is a severe disability in any intellectual discussion
>lack on the left
you show your true colors, faggot

>>9677470
>autistic technicalities are anything but a distraction from not having an argument

>>9677434
>>9677435
Well just ignore the fact that what you're calling "communism" created the second most powerful nation the world has ever seen, which held out against near the entire world conspiring against it for a half century. And in that system the workers had no power over the means of production whatsoever.

Communism doesn't work - well, save on really small scales like worker owned startups, such as the early days of Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, et. al. - or small communities under the umbrella of a tolerant capitalist nation... But after awhile you get to a point where you can't, for instance, give your warehouse workers a say in your software design decisions, and you simply can't compete with a larger more centralized organization, like a publicly traded corporation - so you just become one.

And the problem with calling absolute tyranny communism, is it makes absolute tyranny a-okay, so long as you don't call it that. Neoliberal tyrannies, similarly answerable to no ones, seem just fine to folks who believe what Stalin and Mao were doing was communism, while simultaneously, the government doing anything at all for its people is just the epitome of evil.

Really, those regimes would have fallen apart a lot sooner and the US would have come out of the cold war a lot less twisted, if they called them on their lies, instead of reinforcing them.

>>9677465
(1/4)
Liberal Professor Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky is on the war path against socialism. This time he has approached the question, not from the political and economic angle, but from that of an abstract discussion on equality (perhaps the professor thought such an abstract discussion more suitable for the religious and philosophical gatherings which he has addressed?).

“If we take socialism, not as an economic theory, but as a living ideal,” Mr. Tugan declared, “then, undoubtedly, it is associated with the ideal of equality, but equality is a concept ... that cannot be deduced from experience and reason.”

This is the reasoning of a liberal scholar who repeats the incredibly trite and threadbare argument that experience and reason clearly prove that men are not equal, yet socialism bases its ideal on equality. Hence, socialism, if you please, is an absurdity which is contrary to experience and reason, and so forth!

Mr. Tugan repeats the old trick of the reactionaries: first to misinterpret socialism by making it out to be an absurdity, and then to triumphantly refute the absurdity! When we say that experience and reason prove that men are not equal, we mean by equality, equality in abilities or similarity in physical strength and mental ability.

It goes without saying that in this respect men are not equal. No sensible person and no socialist forgets this. But this kind of equality has nothing whatever to do with socialism. If Mr. Tugan is quite unable to think, he is at least able to read; were lie to Lake the well-known work of one of the founders of scientific socialism, Frederick Engels, directed against Dühring, he would find there a special section explaining the absurdity of imagining that economic equality means anything else than the abolition of classes. But when professors set out to refute socialism, one never knows what to wonder at most—their stupidity, their ignorance, or their unscrupulousness.

>>9677480
(2/4)
Since we have Mr. Tugan to deal with, we shall have to start with the rudiments.

By political equality Social-Democrats mean equal rights, and by economic equality, as we have already said, they mean the abolition of classes. As for establishing human equality in the sense of equality of strength and abilities (physical and mental), socialists do not even think of such things.

Political equality is a demand for equal political rights for all citizens of a country who have reached, a certain age and who do not suffer from either ordinary or liberal-professorial feeble-mindedness. This demand was first advanced, not by the socialists, not by the proletariat, but by the bourgeoisie. The well-known historical experience of all countries of the world proves this, and Mr. Tugan could easily have discovered this had he not called “experience” to witness solely in order to dupe students and workers, and please the powers that be by “abolishing” socialism.

The bourgeoisie put forward the demand for equal rights for all citizens in the struggle against medieval, feudal, serf-owner and caste privileges. In Russia, for example, unlike America, Switzerland and other countries, the privileges of the nobility are preserved to this day in all spheres of political life, in elections to the Council of State, in elections to the Duma, in municipal administration, in taxation, and many other things.

Even the most dull-witted and ignorant person can grasp the fact that individual members of the nobility are not equal in physical and mental abilities any more than are people belonging to the “tax-paying”, “base”, ‘low-born” or “non-privileged” peasant class. But in rights all nobles are equal, just as all the peasants are equal in their lack of rights.

>>9677482
(3/4)
Does our learned liberal Professor Tugan now under stand the difference between equality in the sense of equal rights, and equality in the sense of equal strength and abilities?

We shall now deal with economic equality. In the United States of America, as in other advanced countries, there are no medieval privileges. All citizens, are equal in political rights. But are they equal as regards their position in social production?

No, Mr. Tugan, they are not. Some own land, factories and capital and live on the unpaid labour of the workers; these form an insignificant minority. Others, namely, the vast mass of the population, own no means of production and live only by selling their labour-power; these are proletarians.

In the United States of America there is no aristocracy, and the bourgeoisie and the proletariat enjoy equal political rights. But they are not equal in class status: one class, the capitalists, own the means of production and live on the unpaid labour of the workers. The other class, the wage-workers, the proletariat, own no means of production and live by selling their labour-power in the market.

>>9677484
(4/4)
The abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole. It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth.

This explanation of socialism has been necessary to enlighten our learned liberal professor, Mr. Tugan, who may, if he tries hard, now grasp the fact that it is absurd to expect equality of strength and abilities in socialist society.

In brief, when socialists speak of equality they always mean social equality, equality of social status, and not by any means the physical and mental equality of individuals.

The puzzled reader may ask: how could a learned liberal professor have forgotten these elementary axioms familiar to anybody who has read any exposition of the views of socialism? The answer is simple: the personal qualities of present-day professors are such that we may find among them even exceptionally stupid people like Tugan. But the social status of professors in bourgeois society is such that only those are allowed to hold such posts who sell science to serve the interests of capital, and agree to utter the most fatuous nonsense, the most unscrupulous drivel and twaddle against the socialists. The bourgeoisie will forgive the professors all this as long as they go on “abolishing” socialism.

>>9677480
>>9677482
>>9677484
>>9677485
>wall of text is an argument

>>9677477
>>9677453
>>9677443
>>9677424

wall of text

>>9677496
>>9677496
We cater to the illiterate on >>>/b/.

>>9677475
>>9677487
>Argument: socialism rests on the assumption that all people are equal with respect to physical and mental abilities, which is clearly untrue
>Counterargument: No part of abolishing the bourgeoisie and securing everyone the right to their own labor requires that people be equal with respect to physical or mental abilities. "Equality" in the sense of power over production and "equality" in the sense of being the same are totally different, independent concepts which should not be conflated. This misunderstanding has been refuted millions of times, and the only reason it's still around is because people aren't interested in the truth of their arguments, only showmanship and manipulation, and use it disingenuously or with wilful ignorance
>Counter-counterargument: lol well you brought in an outside source so you lost, bucko
>lol that's a lotta words hurrrrr
>having a lot of words automatically makes something invalid as soon as i say the magic phrase
fucking kill me now senpai lmao
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmVkJvieaOA

>>9677500
Did you mean to link >>9677487 ?

>>9677500
>if he doesn't want to read my autistic pedantry he must be illiterate

>>9669506
Bro, we probably wouldn't even have the internet or personal computers (that includes phones) if we went with free market autism. In fact, there has never been such a thing as free market, it's a matter of economic context and most of the world has always been quite protectionist and regulatory because the result is a shitty quality of life and fragile economy.

>>9677250
Russia suffered several famines and a World War during those times. It cannot simply be attributed to the economic system. Besides, people were starving in the Great Depression and we don't attribute it to Capitalism (except that it was indeed a fault of the markets crashing).

>>9677382
>the idea of hierarchies terrifies them.
No, because hierarchies have an implicit power imbalance which limits freedom. How is it that Liberatarians are all about maximising liberty and freedom EXCEPT when it comes to Capitalist class relation. Do you not think that being poor is a constraint on personal liberty?

>>9677403
>Ignores the fact that every European country was socialist at some point and the fact that much of European prosperity is owed due to a strong socialist tradition

>>9677424
Basic income is a bad idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGBQwZsp3T0

>>9677453
And yet people defend this (belief of) reptilian competition using "appeal to nature" fallacies.

>>9671798
Marxism has actually decreased famines in countries where Marxism has had an influence on economics.

>>9677457
>you should look to a state of things where rational incentives aren't accumulation of market power and violent suppression of competitors/workers.
Yeah, you get it. But I can never understand why people are vehemently against this motive. It's like the most evil fucking thing to want a society that isn't shit (the contraposition is that our current society is actually in the most optimal configuration - which is absurdly false)

>>9677484
>>9677485
>But they are not equal in class status: one class, the capitalists, own the means of production and live on the unpaid labour of the workers.
I think that mainstream economics denies that there is any such class distinction, only that labourers sell their labour on a market as a commodity in a "fair" exchange. The irony of this is that it's borne of a principle of egalitarianism: that everyone has the same opportunities and equally empowered, i.e.
>when socialists speak of equality they always mean social equality, equality of social status, and not by any means the physical and mental equality of individuals.

So liberals, socialists and libertarians actually want the same thing.

Unfortunately the model of "free exchange" is fails to explain why there's unemployment and extreme inequality instead of everyone flourishing. And mainstream econs have been struggling to explain this shit.

>>9675411

Do not confuse equilibrium with stagnation.

Systems are destroyed and reconstructed from time to time naturally to keep themselves stable. Forests burns, bussiness falls and rivers drought, this is natural for it creates spaces and oportunities that can be colonized again and allows for all kinds of agents(from colonicers and developers to optimicers and the intermediates).

Keeping a system artificially ordered is only asking for trouble.

Also asymetric distribution of resources is as natural as Morocco having fosfates, Rusia oil and the US the ability to take advantage of that, and intrinsically some countries will use their resources better than others by geography, culture and history.

For externalities, is really a tricky question, we either accept political intervention, which is like giving a plane to a construction worker, of course is going to crash or we accept the idea that the market actually deals with externalities(the environment also causes economic damage, is not an absolute)in an efficient manner is just that it can't adopt that function because it has been completly taken by other agents.

Capitalism acts as an emergent system, and works best in that context, but even giants have weakpoints thats for sure, it only means that private property and free exchange of that property will not go away and the free part seems like it has toppled other centralized systems so these systems either do not work or do not work under the current conditions.

>>9677949
>Systems are destroyed and reconstructed from time to time naturally to keep themselves stable.
Yeah, this is exactly what post-capitalism is premised on. That capitalism is an unstable, contradictory mess and will collapse.

>Also asymetric distribution of resources is as natural as Morocco having fosfates, Rusia oil and the US the ability to take advantage of that, and intrinsically some countries will use their resources better than others by geography, culture and history.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

>we accept the idea that the market actually deals with externalities(the environment also causes economic damage, is not an absolute)in an efficient manner
What if corporations have the potential to irrevocably destroy the Earth's ecosystem? Sure, they'd be punished by the market because profits trend towards zero on a dead Earth but I wouldn't say the market is being efficient there.

> the free part seems like it has toppled other centralized systems so these systems either do not work or do not work under the current conditions.
Agreed. But we must acknowledge that conditions are always changing and context-sensitive and therefore consider all our options objectively. Sometimes private property and markets are not the best way to organise that brings about the best outcome for all: the Internet and services like Wikipedia, for example.

There are loads of contexts in which the market dynamic (profitability) does not match up with the real utility of the investment. A lot of them are counterintuitive and we should rely on Scientific reasoning to pick these out. For example, it can be argued that low wages dis-incentivises firms to innovate because it's more profitable to exploit a cheap labour pool than automate. We need to be able to evaluate the validity and under which conditions of this argument is true or false.

TL;DR shit is complicated, lets use science to figure it out.

>>9677968

> unstable, contradictory mess and will collapse.

On first hand, it might look like such, but really why? Inequality by itself is not a problem as long as basic needs are covered, pollution has market answers, resource consumption is precisely the least of the problems for prices promote resource optimization(green tech wouldn't have received any impulse if it weren't by the oil crises)

>Appeal to nature

That is not say, that you seem to understand it as something undesirable or negative, when it's actually a fundamental in force in nature: Systems start simple, then they start using more and more energy and matter to increase their complexity up to the point of employing all matter and energy to maintain themselves and then a perturbation topples them down and start again, trying to scape this requires a constant influx of matter/energy which only delays the problem.

>have the potential to irrevocably destroy the Earth's ecosystem?

That's is another tricky question, although I can argue that is no necesarily a problem of the market, but rather a subproduct of mass cheap production unavoidable when you are trying to serve equally the people in Africa and the people in Europe the same thing, in a fundamental level the industrial process is going to be the same wether you distribute it under bussiness or under central bureaus, for example: European standards of production can only be applied there and you can totally bet that industrialization levels similar to China the end result would be the same.

Even waste has value in a capitalistic system(aluminum is an example), but you have to make it profitable, which is another way to say: efficient enough in terms of resources for technically you can recicle every material in a country but you end up with negative.

cont

>>9677968
Sometimes private property and markets are not the best way to organise that brings about the best outcome for all: the Internet and services like Wikipedia, for example.

Wikipedia might not be the best example, each year requires bigger donations as it's trying to do more things that it actually can sustain, under taht context turns out that the neoliberal idea of a social system based around solidarity and self interest actually works in the internet.

But still I get what you are trying to say, redundancies and coordination are problems that even if you were to argue that they can be solved, they cannot solve each other. For example, 5 gas pipes from different companies, technically there is only need for one, but no one can say anthing, of course in 20 years a crisis starts and 3 companies leave out that gas line because is not profitable, leaving you with 1 and 1 for reserve which is actually efficient, but it took 20 years and a system restart to achieve it, this is a problem that also reverberates in biology: Things happen randomly all the time and things are created and destroyed, but refined, the problem is that meanwhile you have to accept and commit errors to change and evolve, and sometimes those errors can be catastrofic(cancer, autoinmune diseases, plant-induced-fires)

In that sense, I rather say that I'm inclined to accept free markets as the most optimum solutions, and if anything, centralized organization would be just there to cover the inefficiencies that the market is not fixing quick enough.

>>9677868
>Basic income is a bad idea
Did I say anything about basic income? Or did we just not like the tone of the rant, and decide because we didn't like it, it had something to do with basic income?

Although, since you brought us here, basic income does seem to be working fairly well in those few municipalities experimenting with said - though said experiments are all young yet, and there's quite a difference between having a single community with UBI, and an entire nation.

>>9678027
>On first hand, it might look like such, but really why?
Positive case: A post-scarcity society would render capitalism obsolete.
If we agree that capitalism optimises processes until they are most efficient, we can conclude that it will eventually result in such abundance that it is no longer necessary to have private property or markets.

Negative case: extreme inequality becomes untenable leading to civil unrest/revolution or major ecological disaster* or maybe even tendency for rate of profit to fall (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall).).

*The titanic took 3 hours to sink after hitting the iceberg. We may have already hit the proverbial iceberg WRT to climate change but it's hard to know for sure.

>Systems start simple, then they start using more and more energy and matter to increase Their complexity up to the point of employing all matter and energy to maintain themselves
In theory then, it could be possible to force a collapse or make it happen sooner by ensuring it operates in its best possibly configuration. Like, we know clean energy is the future but oil is holding us back so a potential solution is to find ways to burn as much oil as possible so it becomes unsustainable quicker and we move on to clean energy.

(cont.)

>>9678084
>>9678034
>subproduct of mass cheap production
Back to markets, because the emergence of mass cheap production is an optimisation to maximise profits. The goals of profit maximisation and sustainable production in this case are mismatched and needs a correction, be it through market forces or intervention of some sort. Again, my concern is that market forces don't naturally lead to optimal solutions and, as you rightfully pointed out, often requires backtracking and restarts.

Now bear with me while I put my tin-foil hat on:
What if we fall into a local optimum that is beyond our capabilities overcome? Like the advent of VR and our monkey brains creating a civilisation of earth-bound brainlets stuck in a endless cycle of banal, consumerist gratification?

I think there are many traps like this and capitalisms tendency to reward banal "innovations" can be a problem (see market valuation of social media vs real industries, and tendency for VCs to throw money at bullshit like Juicero).

That said, it does indeed look like the world world is converging on the Keynesian approach of free markets, private property + interventions when needed.

>>9670113
>Capitalism and its dominant mode of production
there is no inherently dominant group in a capitalist society, this is not feudalism. Anyone can own the means of production and owning them doesn't equal success or richness or anything, not even wealth. The "power" that comes from owning "the means of production" only is such if they are used to produce and comercialize goods. This means that any diferentiation between "burgouis" and "proletariat" is just a false assumption made for the sake of ecouraging a violent revolution.

>>9669666
Climate change will be defeated when we run out of fuel.

>>9678103
>Anyone can own the means of production and owning them doesn't equal success or richness or anything
The point is that those who do own the means of production have the opportunity to seek riches. Not that they're guaranteed to become rich. Though there's probably a lot of people who are impossibly rich without working a single day in their lives. Proletariat have nothing to offer but their labour and are thus disadvantaged in relation to the propertied classes.

In this regard, people who do not own the means of production are clearly disadvantaged and do not have equal opportunity on the market unless they become capitalists themselves. But if everyone become a capitalist, there'd be no proletariat to do the work so capitalism clearly perpetuates class relations.

No matter your views, it's a pretty solid argument and theory.

>This means that any diferentiation between "burgouis" and "proletariat" is just a false assumption made for the sake of ecouraging a violent revolution.
Class analysis is useful beyond justifying violent revolution (seriously, is this even still a thing?)

>>9670180
>social responsibility or ethics
This has to come from the consumer, not the producer. If people select producers that behave more ethically the ones that do not will see a drop in sales and will have to act accordingly or perish.
If a community doesn't care about it's own environment and would rather buy something "cheaper", why should the market be intervened by an entity that's supposed to be the "Will of the people".
This also has the added cost of bureucracy, which in a free market society may not exist or cost a lot less as there will be "seal of approval" companies that would be created by market pressure (like the IRAM or ISO) to easily and surely identify companies that follow certain ethics. If a seal of aproval company just receives "bribes" to give its seal people would just mistrust the seal and the companies that are indeed ethical would just choose another seal, making the corrupt seal companies go bankrupt.

The reason the market is so much better than state intervention is not because MUH NAP, but because the market is the sum of all the decisions made by a community not by force, but by using their self determination. A state is very limited in terms of recognizing and adapting to the wants and needs of the population and any attempt to disrupt the market will end in unenployment, poverty and death as has been shown countless of times in different countries and cultures.

The case for Somalia is a racial problem, as african countries with total state intervention like Zimbabwe are ALSO shitholes. It's like any kind of attempt at self-government made by Africans will end in failure unless they go full primitive tribal.

>>9670188
>So government funding programs
Not meddling with the market is not a government funding program.
>Also how do you technically magic corruption away
You can't, that's why you get away with the government in the economy, which is THE most corrupt organization in any country.
>So again, government funding is a non-market solution.
So again, getting the government out of the way is not a non-market solution.
>So if wages stagnate
They won't. History has proven that wages rise the freer the market, that's why USA has insanely high wages even for low level jobs compared to any third world country. Wages stagnate only when the workers can't move to better paying areas(borders) and when the governments puts insanely high taxes on business that make it impossible to create a new company and forces the workers to accept the terms and just stay in their work because they can't move nor create their own company.

>>9670977
>Empathy and solidarity dies with the death of the state
Is this what are you implying?

>>9670987
China has been under a dictatorship for what? a hundred years? Using that country to criticize the free market is retarded.

>>9671011
>Republicans are the same as dictators of the CCCP
Really dude?

>>9678120
>because the market is the sum of all the decisions made by a community not by force
This also has some damning implications in itself. This is only fair if everyone's decisions are equally weighted. So you're positing the following linear combination to describe a market:

[eqn]\Sigma_{i=1}^n M = p_1 + p_2 + \dots + p_n[/eqn]

However, it's probably more like this:

[eqn]\Sigma_{i=1}^n M = x_1p_1 + x_2p_2 + \dots + x_3p_n[/eqn]

x is the coefficient denoting economic power so it means the rich will have disproportionate control over the outcome of the total market. Replacing civil representation with a free market is obviously undemocratic and why Ancapistan is a terrible place.

>>9671003
>Japan encourages smoking
lmao ((((((citation needed))))))

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/world/asia/japan-smokers-vacation.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/31/japan-urged-to-go-smoke-free-by-2020-tokyo-olympics
https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2018/03/1c5a989f8e31-feature-smoke-free-workplaces-on-rise-in-japan-as-companies-promote-health.html

>>9677135
>Killed millions of their own peopl
>Received subsides from the allies after WW1
>Received credits from bankers all over the world
>Killed millions of farmers just because they didn't want to work for free
>Secret police
>Black market bigger than official economy
>Mass starvation
>All of this to send a dog and a man into space
>Then collapse and adopt sort of keynesian capitalism
KEK
Communism, not even once.

>>9677196
what? You can't do a economic experiment on a lab

>>9677443
>My perfect vision doesn't work because people are retarded, its their fault not mine!!!!111

>>9678174
China is doing very well and is still very much dedicated to Communism (with Chinese characteristics). All the world's manufacturing is now in China and they're gearing up to reform into clean energy as well as having more direct control over their tech sector:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-04-12/china-is-nationalizing-its-tech-sector

Though it can be argued that China as an efficient entity predates Communism.

>>9678114
>No matter your views, it's a pretty solid argument and theory.
No
>Not that they're guaranteed to become rich
Why would they? Richness is subjective, a poor person in 2018 is far richer than a king from 1000 years ago.
>Proletariat have nothing to offer but their labour
For now, until they save up to create their own company if they please. If they do and are succesfull their children would not have their problems.
>In this regard, people who do not own the means of production are clearly disadvantaged and do not have equal opportunity on the market unless they become capitalists themselves.
Disadvantaged with respect to what? If your job pays you what you deem enough then there is no problem. Working for a salary is not slavery, is the free exchange of a good(money or its equivalent) for a service (the work). Agents are free to decide when they have enough based on their own perceptions, not those imposed by the state in a planned economy.

>But if everyone become a capitalist, there'd be no proletariat to do the work so capitalism clearly perpetuates class relations.
This is beyond retarded. Capitalism doesn't "die" if everyone owns the "means of production", because thats what happens now, every persons owns the ultimate "mean of production" which is the mind, something you commies can't seem to understand. A bare building filled with robots of all sorts is nothing if the owners can't make them work nor sell the things produced, being a "son of" also doesn't has a direct relationship with being succesful as most family companies die whitin the second or third generation.

>>9678114
>But if everyone become a capitalist, there'd be no proletariat to do the work so capitalism clearly perpetuates class relations.
what the fuck are freelancers and unipersonal companies you fucking retard what you are saying is pure bullshit you fucking fuck the only reason there are companies is because it is far easier to just work 9-17 for a salary and forget about everything after work that putting uncountable hours in setting up a company and MAINTAING IT for the years to come. Even if there would be no government meddling this is no easy task and even if you success, your son can make retarded decisions and fuck up all your work whitin a few years.

>>9678084
It might render currency obsolete, but it won't eliminate the drive behind capitalism and its core flaw. If it isn't money it'll be something else that gets a group power. that'll get them more power in turn, leading to the ability to grab even more power, until they subvert the whole civilization to doing nothing but simply getting them more power. Be it fame, respect, or social media hits, something will inevitably lead to a mad concentration of power, followed by it being used solely for the purpose of acquiring more by a narrow band of people.

It's not enough to remove materialism, you must remove the negative qualities of the very things that allow humanity to thrive, such as ambition, tribalism, and cult of personality. How you remove the negative without also removing the positive is a dicey thing, and something for which I've heard no real solution for, from any idealist.

>>9675305
Pretending that it's scientific won't make Marxism work

>>9678156
If you buy unnecesary goods that the rest of the market doesn't need and you cannot transform nor resell you lose economic power because the money that you spent to buy them would be lost. This opens up for more efficient companies to take your place.
Again, if you pollute and the community where you sell your goods doesn't like that, you won't sell. If some other big company comes to buy your goods you could continue to work until this other big company loses all its economic power to a more efficient company because all the things that it has bought from you can't be resold into the market because the community doesn't like pollution. The community doing so (even if its comprised of "low power agents") will open up a place for a non-polluting company to pruduce and sell non-polluting goods. This is the problem of the state as the state subsides inefficient companies, but as it has virtually unlimited funds the inefficient companies can thrive for decades despite the community not liking them.

>>9669175
Fuck off commie

>>9678227
>Working for a salary is not slavery, is the free exchange of a good(money or its equivalent) for a service (the work).
Not exactly slavery, but it's exploitative if worker is under threat of starvation and thus must engage in labour involuntarily. Also if profit = surplus value added by labour (but this is premised on LTV being true).

Look, we're never going have consensus because the two theories (neoclassical economics and Marxism) are inherently incompatible, obviously. One relies on the supply-demand curve and marginal utility to explain prices and labour is just another commodity. It offers no description of non-market relationships/phenomena. The problem is that it's positioned as a 100% complete theory, which is like Physicists saying we should stop at Newtonian physics because it explains everything.

I am inclined to agree that it could be beneficial in a world of perfect competition, no information disparity and full employment, in which case all unemployment is voluntary. But this is clearly not the case in real life.

>>9678231
>what the fuck are freelancers and unipersonal companies you fucking retard
You're right. The capitalist class relation doesn't apply in this case because there is no worker-capitalist transfer of surplus. There can be more than one mode of production within a capitalist economy. Worker cooperatives are another form of organisation that subverts this class relation and others such as rent-seeking, arbitrage and lending are other forms of nonproductive class relation.


Before I let this thread die because it's gone off the rails, what do you think of the argument that governments create and maintain markets by setting up the rules of play? It can be argued that transformation from Feudalism to Capitalism was successful because Capitalists set up the state to protect private property and free trade in lieu of a monarchy or "divine right of kings".

>>9678231
>the only reason there are companies is because it is far easier to just work 9-17 for a salary and forget about everything after work that putting uncountable hours in setting up a company and MAINTAING IT for the years to come.
It's as if collectivisation leads to increased efficiency.

Anyways, econs still can't even figure out why firms exist within a neoclassical framework of utility-maximisation. Truly a dismal science.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/theory-firm.asp