4 ms·

It is subtextual, but also emergent in his overall political stance. His argument is that there has been a negative shift in the economy because capitalism died

by gtsop 2y ago

It is subtextual, but also emergent in his overall political stance. His argument is that there has been a negative shift in the economy because capitalism died and technofeudalism took it's place. It is inherent in that stance that one sees the old state of afairs as better. Varoufakis will never state this outloud as clear as i state it here, but you can read his political party programme (mera25) to validate yourself that his polotical proposals are very clearly implemented witihin the capitalist economy without even hint of socialism or communism. > One can observe a transition without taking sides, can they? One can, he cant. He was a prime minister and has been a party leader with concrete political views and policies for many years

vdupras 2y ago
I'm confused. Saying "Technofeudalism is worse than good old capitalism" and believing communism is a better system are not mutually exclusive. Are they? As for mera25 policies being at odds with communist beliefs, I don't know, I don't follow this closely. Maybe he's trying to be realist in finding a way forward? Everyone knows that a marxist party will never win elections. Maybe he addresses this appearance of inconsistency somewhere. In any case, it seems to me that your original characterization of him was exaggerated.
- trod1234 2y ago
  Structurally there is a good deal of literature published by Mises and others on socialism, communism, feudalism, etc. They are very nearly identical when it comes to the important economic systems aspects involving the choices people make. Communism is about adopting socialism through violent revolutionary means. The Fabians were all about gradually forcing adoption to socialism. Feudalism met definitional characteristics for socialism, while being about the state or aristocracy. The names of the various movements, or their fine-detailed implementations mean little while they still retain the important properties of structure that lead to failures, such as state apparatus owning/controlling most private property with little or no private ownership. The names themselves mean very little given the structures and defects involved. Fiat money and deficit spending for example while initially backed by assets before the 1970s, eventually fail to non-market socialism, destroying the market in the process through debauchery of the currency (Lenin/Keynes), culminating in the Socialist calculation problem. We can already see this happening with regards to the continual trends towards concentration of the market into few hands, who then make mistakes favoring profit driven by artificial constraint over production, that results in shortage. Competition is prevented by these entities being funded (and undercutting) and is driven by non-reserve debt issuance (0% fractional reserve, circa 2020). Transitions to false reserve systems (capital reserves) is based in flawed value schemes that do not account for subjective value as defined by Carl Menger, they eventually fail (Basel III), when subjective value reasserts chaotically. Marxist parties that call themselves marxists won't ever win elections because of the long sordid history they have with deceit, delusion, and truth, not to mention the callous disregard for life and limb to the consequences of their actions. Anyone who claims to regularly change their core values and views without good reason (driven by extreme circumstance) is more likely than not to be acting deceitfully, which is engendered in a lack of credibility. Unfortunately, the many promises of socialism as a structure are based in flawed assumptions, defects, and indirection, where many are swayed by delusion instead of following objective reality. When continued survival and life is dependent on such systems not failing, and the rational are being dragged long at the whims of the delusional and insane, bad things happen which cannot be stopped. This is a kind of existential risk that deserves rational thought and careful attention, but the psychological stress of our times has regressed all but a minority of those with competent or capable intellects, who are then ignored. Hubris and sloth can be impossible things to fight against once the snowball gets moving downhill. The consequences of such circumstances, given history, are much more likely to involve loss of life or injury, or worse.
  - zhengiszen 2y ago
    Thank you, food for thought...
- gtsop 2y ago
  > and believing communism is a better system are not mutually exclusive. Are they? Mathematically speaking, no they are not. Politically speaking, yes they are. It is a different thing to have made such an analysis and it is a different thing to use it as your main political argument for reform. But this discussion buys into the argument that he is even pro-communist (which is what he sells) when he clearly isn't if you look at his concrete political actions. Especially when he was a prime minister.

by gtsop 2y ago

vdupras 2y ago

I'm confused. Saying "Technofeudalism is worse than good old capitalism" and believing communism is a better system are not mutually exclusive. Are they? As for mera25 policies being at odds with communist beliefs, I don't know, I don't follow this closely. Maybe he's trying to be realist in finding a way forward? Everyone knows that a marxist party will never win elections. Maybe he addresses this appearance of inconsistency somewhere. In any case, it seems to me that your original characterization of him was exaggerated.

trod1234 2y ago
Structurally there is a good deal of literature published by Mises and others on socialism, communism, feudalism, etc. They are very nearly identical when it comes to the important economic systems aspects involving the choices people make. Communism is about adopting socialism through violent revolutionary means. The Fabians were all about gradually forcing adoption to socialism. Feudalism met definitional characteristics for socialism, while being about the state or aristocracy. The names of the various movements, or their fine-detailed implementations mean little while they still retain the important properties of structure that lead to failures, such as state apparatus owning/controlling most private property with little or no private ownership. The names themselves mean very little given the structures and defects involved. Fiat money and deficit spending for example while initially backed by assets before the 1970s, eventually fail to non-market socialism, destroying the market in the process through debauchery of the currency (Lenin/Keynes), culminating in the Socialist calculation problem. We can already see this happening with regards to the continual trends towards concentration of the market into few hands, who then make mistakes favoring profit driven by artificial constraint over production, that results in shortage. Competition is prevented by these entities being funded (and undercutting) and is driven by non-reserve debt issuance (0% fractional reserve, circa 2020). Transitions to false reserve systems (capital reserves) is based in flawed value schemes that do not account for subjective value as defined by Carl Menger, they eventually fail (Basel III), when subjective value reasserts chaotically. Marxist parties that call themselves marxists won't ever win elections because of the long sordid history they have with deceit, delusion, and truth, not to mention the callous disregard for life and limb to the consequences of their actions. Anyone who claims to regularly change their core values and views without good reason (driven by extreme circumstance) is more likely than not to be acting deceitfully, which is engendered in a lack of credibility. Unfortunately, the many promises of socialism as a structure are based in flawed assumptions, defects, and indirection, where many are swayed by delusion instead of following objective reality. When continued survival and life is dependent on such systems not failing, and the rational are being dragged long at the whims of the delusional and insane, bad things happen which cannot be stopped. This is a kind of existential risk that deserves rational thought and careful attention, but the psychological stress of our times has regressed all but a minority of those with competent or capable intellects, who are then ignored. Hubris and sloth can be impossible things to fight against once the snowball gets moving downhill. The consequences of such circumstances, given history, are much more likely to involve loss of life or injury, or worse.
- zhengiszen 2y ago
  Thank you, food for thought...
gtsop 2y ago
> and believing communism is a better system are not mutually exclusive. Are they? Mathematically speaking, no they are not. Politically speaking, yes they are. It is a different thing to have made such an analysis and it is a different thing to use it as your main political argument for reform. But this discussion buys into the argument that he is even pro-communist (which is what he sells) when he clearly isn't if you look at his concrete political actions. Especially when he was a prime minister.