4 ms·

I agree, and I'm really not trying to "trick" people into admitting a communist philosophy as some sort of way to invalidate the idea. I'm just trying to get at

by cheald 13y ago

I agree, and I'm really not trying to "trick" people into admitting a communist philosophy as some sort of way to invalidate the idea. I'm just trying to get at the heart of the matter. If it's communism as Karl Marx outlined in his writings, let's call it that, because that's what it is. Communism is not an invention of Soviet Russia or China - they're certainly examples of it failing spectacularly, but my intent is to say "If we're advocating for a system like Marx described, can we admit that it's what Marx wrote about?" - I'm not trying to equate people who advocate for BI with Lenin or anything. If someone believe that communism is the right economic model, then great, argue from that position. Just be straightforward about what the position is.

steveklabnik 13y ago
Absolutely, I just don't think most can be honest about it. Also, minor procedural note, Marx wrote mostly about capitalism and analyzing it, and a tiny bit about socialism, but next to nothing on communism... Anyway.
jholman 13y ago
> I'm really not trying to "trick" people into admitting a communist philosophy Well, you sound sincere, but your arguments are so ahistorical that it's really tough to believe you. First of all, you keep saying "Marxist communism" and "what Marx called 'communism'", and so on. "Communism" is not the name of something Marx proposed. It's the name of something someone else proposed, while boosting its credibility by invoking Marx. Second of all, nothing approaching Marxism has been tried on a large scale. Again, see "communism is not marxism". But more importantly, the essential property of both Marxism and Communism is that the means of production are owned by the state, ("by the people collectively", ha ha ha). No BI plan is proposing that. So they're fundamentally absolutely not marxist, and not communist. I simply don't understand what you think the BI plan has in common with Marxism, or with Socialism, aside from a concern for the welfare of poor members of society (a concern which I hope you will agree is not exclusive to Marxism and Socialism).
- cheald 13y ago
  I'll fully concede that my terminology is poorly chosen. I genuinely am sincere here, and I'm happy to wear my ignorance on my sleeve in the hopes of learning something. I'm happy to admit that I don't have it all figured out! I'm aware that the USSR didn't implement pure Marxism, but implemented something called "communism" and invoked Marx as its deity. I think that a purely classless society as Marx envisioned is probably unachievable. I really am trying to avoid equating support BI with some ridiculous 1950s idea of Soviet communism, and I'm probably doing a pretty crappy job of it. All that said, the whole concept seems to me to lead down a path that drives entrepreneurs out of the market by making the cost of doing business greater than the profit of it, which would necessarily lead to the nationalization of industries deemed essential. A society in which private entrepreneurs are taxed to a point of zero net revenue is effectively indistinguishable from the state's name being on the deed. I recognize that that the concept of that level of taxation is severe, but I'm also trying to figure out why it wouldn't eventually happen. As simply as I can state it, BI seems flawed to me because the cost of living is pegged to the cost of goods, and the cost of goods in a competitive market doesn't have a lot of downwards elasticity. The funding for BI would have to come from producers, which would drive up the cost of those goods, which would drive people out of the market, which would reduce competition and increase the cost of goods, all of which increases the minimum BI necessary to achieve a consistent quality of life. That seems to be to be a feedback loop of which the end effect is the effective nationalization of business in order to control prices. Many people obviously disagree that that's the end result. Experience would tell me that I've made an assumption that they haven't, and I'd like to figure out what that assumption is, and how viable that assumption is.
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    > I'm aware that the USSR didn't implement pure Marxism, but implemented something called "communism" and invoked Marx as its deity. Uh. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, not communist republics.
    - cheald 13y ago
      ...which was ruled by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. My knowledge of Soviet history is incomplete, but surely you're not suggesting that the USSR didn't claim to implement communism.

by cheald 13y ago

steveklabnik 13y ago

Absolutely, I just don't think most can be honest about it. Also, minor procedural note, Marx wrote mostly about capitalism and analyzing it, and a tiny bit about socialism, but next to nothing on communism... Anyway.

jholman 13y ago

> I'm really not trying to "trick" people into admitting a communist philosophy Well, you sound sincere, but your arguments are so ahistorical that it's really tough to believe you. First of all, you keep saying "Marxist communism" and "what Marx called 'communism'", and so on. "Communism" is not the name of something Marx proposed. It's the name of something someone else proposed, while boosting its credibility by invoking Marx. Second of all, nothing approaching Marxism has been tried on a large scale. Again, see "communism is not marxism". But more importantly, the essential property of both Marxism and Communism is that the means of production are owned by the state, ("by the people collectively", ha ha ha). No BI plan is proposing that. So they're fundamentally absolutely not marxist, and not communist. I simply don't understand what you think the BI plan has in common with Marxism, or with Socialism, aside from a concern for the welfare of poor members of society (a concern which I hope you will agree is not exclusive to Marxism and Socialism).

cheald 13y ago
I'll fully concede that my terminology is poorly chosen. I genuinely am sincere here, and I'm happy to wear my ignorance on my sleeve in the hopes of learning something. I'm happy to admit that I don't have it all figured out! I'm aware that the USSR didn't implement pure Marxism, but implemented something called "communism" and invoked Marx as its deity. I think that a purely classless society as Marx envisioned is probably unachievable. I really am trying to avoid equating support BI with some ridiculous 1950s idea of Soviet communism, and I'm probably doing a pretty crappy job of it. All that said, the whole concept seems to me to lead down a path that drives entrepreneurs out of the market by making the cost of doing business greater than the profit of it, which would necessarily lead to the nationalization of industries deemed essential. A society in which private entrepreneurs are taxed to a point of zero net revenue is effectively indistinguishable from the state's name being on the deed. I recognize that that the concept of that level of taxation is severe, but I'm also trying to figure out why it wouldn't eventually happen. As simply as I can state it, BI seems flawed to me because the cost of living is pegged to the cost of goods, and the cost of goods in a competitive market doesn't have a lot of downwards elasticity. The funding for BI would have to come from producers, which would drive up the cost of those goods, which would drive people out of the market, which would reduce competition and increase the cost of goods, all of which increases the minimum BI necessary to achieve a consistent quality of life. That seems to be to be a feedback loop of which the end effect is the effective nationalization of business in order to control prices. Many people obviously disagree that that's the end result. Experience would tell me that I've made an assumption that they haven't, and I'd like to figure out what that assumption is, and how viable that assumption is.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  > I'm aware that the USSR didn't implement pure Marxism, but implemented something called "communism" and invoked Marx as its deity. Uh. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, not communist republics.
  - cheald 13y ago
    ...which was ruled by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. My knowledge of Soviet history is incomplete, but surely you're not suggesting that the USSR didn't claim to implement communism.