[Quinny]

A secular religion mmm... haven't come across one of them before.

Although I tend to agree with much of what AD says, it tends to because his analysis is usually pretty spot on. I haven't seen many 'scripture' style quotes, unless he's taking the p*!!.

It is my understanding that AD however believes that their is enough Surplus Value to extract from workers for the system to continue to operate post PO. I think there could be systemic collapse before then, as capitalism has become 'hooked' on cheap oil and the shock of going past the peak could be just too much for it to transition. I'd like to make a couple of points, to be fair to AD, 1. I may be quoting him wrongly, but also 2. He seemed to have a better handle on the situation than me as he had looked at it more rigorously than I had.

Whenever Marxism is discussed, historic examples of failed State Capitalism are quoted, but I cannot recall anyone who has actually attacked Marxism as an economic theory. No-one says this formula (or these formulae) are wrong, or even the theory of Surplus Value is inappropriate in modern times, or really discusses Marxism at all. I always found the theory to be sound, but then again no-one's ever tried to disprove it to me.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '[')The great prophet of Marxism, Karl Marx. Marx was a great scholar in the German tradition and his work on early 19th century economics is still useful to economists today. --snip-- For instance, fundamentalist Marxists love to quote "scripture" from Marx's writings and believe that statements quoted from Marx provide moral guidance, Marxists believe Das Kapital and other writings of Marx are inerrant and literal and true, and Marxists have faith that Marx's predictions in these writs are destined to be fulfilled.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', '
')Whenever Marxism is discussed, historic examples of failed State Capitalism are quoted....

[Quinny]

There you go bringing religion into it, with yet again no criticism of Marxist theory.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'T')here you go bringing religion into it, with yet again no criticism of Marxist theory.

[Quinny]

Who says so? The same people that call PO a religion?

Or is it just a statement to allow you to avoid confronting the theory?

Can't find it here. http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '[')b]Marxism IS a religion, and Marx is its prophet. Marxists believe that their prophet Marx has written books that are inerrant, and only by understanding Marxist theory can they create a paradise on earth as Marx prophesized. --snip--
And since the prophet Marx is always right, the failed Marxist states failed not because they were Marxist, but because they deviated from the true word of Marx into heresy.

[mattduke]

The fundamental impossibility of socialism is, as every nation that has tried it has discovered, the inability to perform economic calculation in the absence of free market prices. That is, how to allocate scarce economic resources in the manner most beneficial to society. The free market does this in a fully distributed, democratic fashion with millions of people making billions of economic choices every day. The idea that some central office could come close to that level of dynamic adaptation is preposterous. Socialist insituttions such as central banks wreak havoc upon the monetary system, distrupting economic calculation and distorting the economy. It is testament to the power and adaptability of the free market that it makes progress regardless. (Marx was a big advocate of central banking). The second main problem with socialism is ethical: socialism is based upon violence, where a man's work may be appropriated from him at gunpoint without his consent.

[Plantagenet]

The Marxists of the 20th century were happy to interpret "Marxist theory" in ways that accommodated Stalin and his mass murders and Pol Pot and his mass murders and Kim Il Sung and his mass murders and Mao Tse Tung and his mass murders.

I'm glad you find comfort in your Marx, but personally I think Marxism is a secular religion that repeatedly and catastophically failed to deliver the paradise promised by marx.

[Quinny]

So we do have a free market now do we? That allocates scarce economic resources in a manner most beneficial to society? That would work but for the 'Socialist' central banks?

Can I have some of whatever you're on? Planty - I told you you'd say that.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mattduke', 'T')he fundamental impossibility of socialism is, as every nation that has tried it has discovered, the inability to perform economic calculation in the absence of free market prices. That is, how to allocate scarce economic resources in the manner most beneficial to society. The free market does this in a fully distributed, democratic fashion with millions of people making billions of economic choices every day. --snip-- The second main problem with socialism is ethical: socialism is based upon violence, where a man's work may be appropriated from him at gunpoint without his consent.

[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'W')hich part did you read.... most of the thinking & analysis seemed quite rigorous to me. --snip-- I still don't think he identified the impact of oil and it's sudden decline and how that will effect the transititon to communism.

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '[')img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_CSUPQ7EpU_4/SNDMmCrLecI/AAAAAAAAbnk/w-IgI5Tei5E/S1600-R/MarxObama.jpg[/img]

[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mattduke', 'T')he fundamental impossibility of socialism is, as every nation that has tried it has discovered, the inability to perform economic calculation in the absence of free market prices. That is, how to allocate scarce economic resources in the manner most beneficial to society. The free market does this in a fully distributed, democratic fashion with millions of people making billions of economic choices every day. The idea that some central office could come close to that level of dynamic adaptation is preposterous. Socialist insituttions such as central banks wreak havoc upon the monetary system, distrupting economic calculation and distorting the economy. It is testament to the power and adaptability of the free market that it makes progress regardless. (Marx was a big advocate of central banking). The second main problem with socialism is ethical: socialism is based upon violence, where a man's work may be appropriated from him at gunpoint without his consent.

[Blacksmith]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dorlomin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '[')img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_CSUPQ7EpU_4/SNDMmCrLecI/AAAAAAAAbnk/w-IgI5Tei5E/S1600-R/MarxObama.jpg[/img]

[Kristen]

Sorry but my political views are more three dimensional then a simple left or right.

[eastbay]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'T')here you go bringing religion into it, with yet again no criticism of Marxist theory.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dorlomin', '
')

[Quinny]

Don't apologise, I don't think their is anything wrong with that.

I tend to look at the two dimensions of economic and liberty, as per the political compass.

What's your third dimension?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kristen', 'S')orry but my political views are more three dimensional then a simple left or right.

[Quinny]

There's me ever the optimist thinking for a moment that you might spew forth some gems from your reading of Kapital that would throw some light on the reasons for you being so against marxist theory.

I should have known better

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dorlomin', '
')

[americandream]

To everyone on here who for some curious reason associates my Marxist beliefs with the reformism initiatives of the elite, let me repeat myself.

I am utterly disinclined, UTTERLY UTTERLY DISINCLINED, in interfering in the Darwinian outcomes of the free market, as unpleasant as they may be (read your Marx carefully Plantaganet), involving as they do:

1 Periodic applications of the fiscal purse to finance relief measures designed to pacify labour,

2 Occasional crises applications of the fiscal purse to subsidise expansion into new markets as we see in the current economic fiasco, entailing as it does, the reinvention of the consumer model to accommodate China, India and the former Soviet countries;

3 Ongoing applications of the fiscal purse to wage wars of attrition designed to secure commodity subsidies, especially the oil subsidy,

4 Future applications of the global fiscal purse to amplify any and all capital initiatives as they will arise from time to time.

These are fundamental precursors to the onset of the conditions necessary for scientific socialism and I am ABSOLUTELY in favour of leaving the market totally and utterly free to complete the total globalisation of labour to broad spectrum capital.

We have no argument my friends other than my view that capitalism IS NOT sustainable and that in that fact lies its catharsis. But as for reforming it, a resounding NOOOOOOOO.

I trust this sniping is now at an end. On the other hand, if you have a logical argument as to why cornucopia may infinitely expand within a finite resource model, and it does not involve vague allusions to "black hood" or other curious detours, then please, please, enlighten me. This after all is a debate designed to contemplate the contours of post peak resourcing and I am all for being convinced otherwise.

If not, then as far as I am concerned, this debate is at an end for me as I am rather busy.

[JPL]

Ah, what the hell...



A revolution without guns is like beer without alcohol. Sock it to 'em lads:



JP (grin)

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'T')here's me ever the optimist thinking for a moment that you might spew forth some gems from your reading of Kapital that would throw some light on the reasons for you being so against marxist theory.

I should have known better