Socialism Explained by Prof Richard Wolff

Nope. Wrong. When the basic concepts do not match objective reality, that is sufficient understanding to dismiss the theory in all its details.

And what socialist ideologues have created in defense of socialism.

GET IT???

 

Kernels of truth are often used to conceal corruption and evil. Details expose truth and create an opportunity to further correct the advancement of truth. The public lacks such details due to the spin and superficial slogans given by capitalist ideologues. Example: "capitalism has created the most advanced technology, science, and the highest standard of living ever known, and you want to end that golden goose!" Nice slogan but lacking in valid details that expose the problems. And your original comment that began our little chat here was even more cryptic than that.

 

No doubt that is what the entrepreneur intends, but things don't always turn out that way.

Their employer.

 

Yes, I get that it is time for in-depth analysis and the courage to explore it in spite of capitalist ideologues' taboos on discussion.

 

And socialist ones, and religious ones....

Very true. One approach to unpacking the problems with that argument would be to point out that the Romans could have said the same thing about slavery. So we can start by asking why capitalism achieved those marvels when other systems did not, and see what kind of explanation is given. I can at least explain why capitalism has done better than socialism: when socialists steal factories, there are fewer factories available for production; but when capitalists steal land, the amount of land available for production stays exactly the same.

I thought it was pretty clear. What part of it didn't you understand?

 

I'm all for discussion, and the deeper the better. You seem to assume I am a capitalist. Haven't I been clear enough? Most people find me very -- even uncomfortably -- clear.

 

In the past I've just about always found you to be fairly anti-capitalist and supportive of the working class, but I found your original statement today to be short on beneficial clarity.

 

I'm not interested in drilling down in Marx' theories.

 

"Watch my video" is an answer? Hohhhh-Kayyyyy...

 

Why don't you deal with what I wrote instead of making stuff up?

 

No, the outcome in the graph above is not the outcome most economists prefer.

 

Huh? The cost of capital is what a lot of people forget when they consider what workers are paid.

A few hundred people own a refinery worth $10b? What happens when a worker retires and wants to cash out?

 

All it needs is understanding that it's not the working class vs the owning class. It's the contributor class vs the parasite class.

 

I am not one of them.

He gets his wages, retirement fund, etc. And...?

 

I don't know about "most" economists, but effectively all modern mainstream neoclassical economists sure act like it is. See "Inside Job."

 

Then that would be your error. Economies are not driven by industriousness vs. laziness although both show up to some degree.

 

Nope. I am objectively correct. But your error is shown here:

It's not a question of industriousness vs laziness. It's a question of the legal institutions that enable and reward making vs those that enable and reward taking.

 

Find me a definition of socialism or capitalism that makes those features the definition of the system.

 

Capitalism: private ownership of the means of production (land and producer goods)
Socialism: collective ownership of the means of production.

As land's value is publicly created, private ownership of land enables and rewards the private appropriation of land value. As the value of producer goods is privately created, collective ownership of producer goods enables and rewards collective -- i.e., political -- appropriation of producer goods' value.

 

Since you said "All it needs is understanding that it's not the working class vs the owning class. It's the contributor class vs the parasite class." followed by "It's a question of the legal institutions that enable and reward making vs those that enable and reward taking" and you now change your definition, your position is contradicted by yourself. Economic systems are not designed/structured/based on contributions, parasites, institutions that enable/reward "making" or "taking".

If you can't formulate a more precise, more valid, more exacting definition, you can't discuss this intelligently. And then you finally did. You finally copied and posted:
"Capitalism: private ownership of the means of production (land and producer goods)"

At last!

But your capitalist's definition of socialism is still needing precision....
"Socialism: collective ownership of the means of production."

Sorry no. Socialism is a socio-economic system in which THE WORKING CLASS owns the means of production .... --not the "collective" which capitalists have twisted to mean "the state that claims to be communist/socialist/Marxist".

Sorry but that's capitalist bullshit. Again, vague, non-specific, unclear, weaselly, inexact, and therefore not valid.

 

Yeah that happens when you don't know WTF you're talking about.

 

Why don't YOU deal with what the poster said instead of deflecting with YOUR made up "stuff"?

I'll help you....
All workers create more value at work than what they receive in wages. And some of what they create in value and income is used by the business to pay operating expenses along with other value like profit and wages of the non-productive employees.

 

I haven't changed my definition. If you are going to make such a claim, it would behoove you to quote the two different definitions, or at least give the post numbers.

I'm waiting.

Yes, actually, they are, because economic systems have to get the job of reducing the general scarcity done, and those are the main ways they have to do it.

My definitions are precise, valid, and accurate. If you disagree, provide better ones.

Sorry, yes.

Then it is absurd and impossible nonsense, because the working class is not an entity that is capable of owning things. What would it even mean to have "The Working Class" as the owner listed on a deed of title? It's just ridiculous, disingenuous, and evasive claptrap. As expected.

I haven't specified the state as the collective in question, though it is certainly a collective. Socialism can also take the form of voluntary collective ownership, as seen in the Israeli kibbutzim and the Mondragon co-op in Spain.

No it isn't. It has nothing to do with capitalism. It's simply a fact.

GARBAGE. It is specific, clear, straightforward, exact, and perfectly valid. It merely identifies facts that you have already realized prove your beliefs are false, so you have to contrive some means of not knowing them.

 

I quoted them! Is reading so difficult?

So for example, parasitism defines economies. Which? Capitalism or socialism? Obviously the answer is dependent upon the ideology of the person answering. Hence, the whole notion of economies based on such pointless arguments is bogus.

Ya know what, you're wasting my time with nonsense. The idea that the world is defined by your personal opinions and fantasies isn't worth discussing. Bye.

Oh, and I won't be reading your posts any further. Have a good time.

 

Huh? You quoted ONE definition of capitalism and ONE definition of socialism. Giving definitions of two different words is not "changing definitions."

It's PART of the definition.

Both. As any mentally normal adult who has lived under either of them will know.

No, it is a matter of objective, empirical fact. To the extent that healthy working-age adults take without contributing, they are parasites.

No, you just have to contrive some way to avoid knowing the facts.

No, you are wasting your time trying to preserve your belief in nonsense I have conclusively refuted: socialism.

I have identified the relevant facts of objective physical reality in clear, simple, grammatical English.

I have identified the relevant facts. You have to contrive some way to avoid knowing them, because you have already realized that they prove your beliefs are false and evil. Simple.