7 ms·

Another Marxist in a new coat. Good analysis, wrong prescription. Been there, done that, ended up badly. Look into Georgism, that's where the cool kids are now

Another Marxist in a new coat. Good analysis, wrong prescription. Been there, done that, ended up badly. Look into Georgism, that's where the cool kids are now. You don't need a revolution, you need a minor shift in tax code that you haven't thought of yet. It's not the problem of your employer that prices around you increase, so don't make them a villain that you can't pay your rent. Go complain to your slumlord for riding the inflation wave and tak(x)ing away any raise and disposable income your employer gave you. Explanation by a game designer: https://youtu.be/FTZH0Y6OS7g https://youtu.be/FTZH0Y6OS7g

refurb 4y ago
You got on the one hand, the Open Free Market System in America, you have on the other hand, the exact opposite, the closed, controlled, command economy of the Soviet Union… The Chinese tried the Communist model, with their own modifications, and it failed! And they have admitted that it failed. The kids today talk as if these things have never happened. They haven’t learned!
- noughts 4y ago
  I agree that the last thing we should do is to go back to the Soviet Union, but its relationship to many of the alternatives available today is a common misunderstanding. The Soviet Union was described as "socialist" simply to cover up the awful inequality and abuse of power that was at the centre of it. The Soviet Union was basically the opposite of socialism, and this is easy to understand if you compare it to the most basic tenets of socialism, such as socioeconomic inequality. I think that there are a lot of alternatives to both our current Western economic system and the Soviet Union, and I think that if you try to look a bit closer at many of the systems "the kids today" are talking about, in particular the principles and values behind them, without getting caught up in the labels, you'll be pleasantly surprised! Perhaps you would find this list of books I compiled interesting? https://vladh.net/wage-labour-resources https://vladh.net/wage-labour-resources
  - refurb 4y ago
    My response was a bit - tongue in cheek as that's a quote from Singapore's PM during an election campaign. His point was if you remove the competitive aspects - the individualistic ones, the system grinds to a halt. The USSR and China were abusive because you need to be abusive to force people to give over labour for which they don't own the proceeds of. Small time farmers in Vietnam had riots over the collectivization of their land into communes (and the "Communists" there dropped it in favor of capitalism). These are subsistence-level farms who can't read or write - yet they understood the injustice of taking away one's freedom to live of the fruits of your own labour. A far better solution is to separate the economic system with the political one (which communism tries to meld). There is nothing that says you can't have a capitalist system that protects worker rights, or that heavily taxes and redistributes. Rather than killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, figure out how best to use the eggs to the benefit of everyone.
    - vladharbuz 4y ago
      Thank you for expanding on your point! I understand what you meant a lot better now. If you had any resources that expand on your views, I'd be happy to read them.
    - badcppdev 4y ago
      I think your idea of a tongue in cheek comment was a bit simplistic for the subject matter.
- badcppdev 4y ago
  Why are you saying there are only two alternatives? Do you strongly believe that? The author of the article and the related book is 76 years old. Are you calling him a kid?
VictorPath 4y ago
> tak(x)ing away any raise and disposable income your employer gave you An employer does not give a raise and disposable income to a worker. The worker is the creator of wealth, and the heirs collecting dividend profits are who are being given to. Your confusion about the directionality of created wealth within the relations of production is the whole point of the article.
- snidane 4y ago
  The employer needs the worker's labor and ghe employee needs the employer's concentration of power. One needs the other and vice versa. Or are you suggesting the directionality is only one way? Marxists do think that way and they are wrong. The thing they are missing is the third factor of production (labor, capital, land) that was magically omitted from classical economics to make the conflict strictly between labor and capital. You end up with the left right divide blaming each other for wrongdoing even though these two factors are in symbiosis. It's the slumlord on the sidelines that enters the equation unnoticed, convinces the the parties to hate each other, while sucking away their blood like a good parasite.
drivers99 4y ago
Re: Georgism/LVT I’ve gotten interested in how it affects land use. I’ll check out that long video (listening now, sounds like they get past the introductions at the 30 minute mark) but here’s a couple shorter videos about it meanwhile. The guest of the podcast’s articles are here: https://gameofrent.com/ https://gameofrent.com/ https://youtu.be/jFQgOy-5Tng https://youtu.be/jFQgOy-5Tng Land Value Taxation and the Built Environment (10 min) https://youtu.be/h0DvT8_6Hx0 https://youtu.be/h0DvT8_6Hx0 What are the on-the-ground effect of the land value tax? Lesson from the Pennsylvania experience (5 min) https://youtu.be/wHwFyXDx2_U https://youtu.be/wHwFyXDx2_U (28 min) For the Land is Mine. An old documentary with more philosophical/economic background of the idea.

refurb 4y ago

You got on the one hand, the Open Free Market System in America, you have on the other hand, the exact opposite, the closed, controlled, command economy of the Soviet Union… The Chinese tried the Communist model, with their own modifications, and it failed! And they have admitted that it failed. The kids today talk as if these things have never happened. They haven’t learned!

noughts 4y ago
I agree that the last thing we should do is to go back to the Soviet Union, but its relationship to many of the alternatives available today is a common misunderstanding. The Soviet Union was described as "socialist" simply to cover up the awful inequality and abuse of power that was at the centre of it. The Soviet Union was basically the opposite of socialism, and this is easy to understand if you compare it to the most basic tenets of socialism, such as socioeconomic inequality. I think that there are a lot of alternatives to both our current Western economic system and the Soviet Union, and I think that if you try to look a bit closer at many of the systems "the kids today" are talking about, in particular the principles and values behind them, without getting caught up in the labels, you'll be pleasantly surprised! Perhaps you would find this list of books I compiled interesting? https://vladh.net/wage-labour-resources https://vladh.net/wage-labour-resources
- refurb 4y ago
  My response was a bit - tongue in cheek as that's a quote from Singapore's PM during an election campaign. His point was if you remove the competitive aspects - the individualistic ones, the system grinds to a halt. The USSR and China were abusive because you need to be abusive to force people to give over labour for which they don't own the proceeds of. Small time farmers in Vietnam had riots over the collectivization of their land into communes (and the "Communists" there dropped it in favor of capitalism). These are subsistence-level farms who can't read or write - yet they understood the injustice of taking away one's freedom to live of the fruits of your own labour. A far better solution is to separate the economic system with the political one (which communism tries to meld). There is nothing that says you can't have a capitalist system that protects worker rights, or that heavily taxes and redistributes. Rather than killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, figure out how best to use the eggs to the benefit of everyone.
  - vladharbuz 4y ago
    Thank you for expanding on your point! I understand what you meant a lot better now. If you had any resources that expand on your views, I'd be happy to read them.
  - badcppdev 4y ago
    I think your idea of a tongue in cheek comment was a bit simplistic for the subject matter.
badcppdev 4y ago
Why are you saying there are only two alternatives? Do you strongly believe that? The author of the article and the related book is 76 years old. Are you calling him a kid?

VictorPath 4y ago

> tak(x)ing away any raise and disposable income your employer gave you An employer does not give a raise and disposable income to a worker. The worker is the creator of wealth, and the heirs collecting dividend profits are who are being given to. Your confusion about the directionality of created wealth within the relations of production is the whole point of the article.

snidane 4y ago
The employer needs the worker's labor and ghe employee needs the employer's concentration of power. One needs the other and vice versa. Or are you suggesting the directionality is only one way? Marxists do think that way and they are wrong. The thing they are missing is the third factor of production (labor, capital, land) that was magically omitted from classical economics to make the conflict strictly between labor and capital. You end up with the left right divide blaming each other for wrongdoing even though these two factors are in symbiosis. It's the slumlord on the sidelines that enters the equation unnoticed, convinces the the parties to hate each other, while sucking away their blood like a good parasite.

drivers99 4y ago

Re: Georgism/LVT I’ve gotten interested in how it affects land use. I’ll check out that long video (listening now, sounds like they get past the introductions at the 30 minute mark) but here’s a couple shorter videos about it meanwhile. The guest of the podcast’s articles are here: https://gameofrent.com/ https://gameofrent.com/ https://youtu.be/jFQgOy-5Tng https://youtu.be/jFQgOy-5Tng Land Value Taxation and the Built Environment (10 min) https://youtu.be/h0DvT8_6Hx0 https://youtu.be/h0DvT8_6Hx0 What are the on-the-ground effect of the land value tax? Lesson from the Pennsylvania experience (5 min) https://youtu.be/wHwFyXDx2_U https://youtu.be/wHwFyXDx2_U (28 min) For the Land is Mine. An old documentary with more philosophical/economic background of the idea.