If you actually read the Communist Manifesto, the planks are actually pretty reasonable for the most part barring some very antiquated and xenophobic stuff about migrants and rebels i.e. the formation of a people’s political party, progressive taxation, public education and transportation, abolition of child labor, increased expansion of state-owned industries, a nationalized banking and credit system, etc. The main idea from actual Marxism was to demand a commons for working people within their old capitalist system, not have men who were fresh out of mass-scale warfare (WW2 and the Chinese Civil War respectively)to attempt to replace capitalism with their interpretations of utopian communism via authoritarian state control and kill millions on the process.

We’re actually in agreement in a lot of ways. Capitalism, like Paul Volcker said, may survive. But as he said, not all of it. Which means the rest of us are going to have to come up with something entirely new to plug the gaping economic whirlpool we’re all swirling towards. And I posit a “new way” as opposed to sticking to the “old way” because as things are, it’s impossible to reform “their” capitalism in any meaningful fashion that would protect the common man’s self-interest. The financial industry’s already set the terms of how our lives are going to be spent for the next couple of decades. They want us and our children to pay them the fake wealth they made up and that they believe they’re owed. You can’t work within that system, not without heavy financial loss on your end and your family and future family. It has to be fought tooth-and-nail.

Funny thing, I’m sure if Marx were around, he’d very much agree with both our angles on this.

I was basing my issues with socialism on Marx’s idea of the authoritarian government taking over and eventually just “giving it up” to the people, which obviously isn’t going to happen (see exhibits A and B, named “Russia” and “China”.) I didn’t even think of another way for it to happen. That’s my bad.

And I’m actually not of the opinion that the market has the right to determine everything either. Most of what I said was just what seems like fact from my viewpoint…I didn’t mean to imply that I actually agreed with it all. I certainly agree that the market should be regulated (and sometimes heavily), but there are some basic problems that the government as it is cannot solve. Witness: the basic electric car. Without being too invasive, the government can provide incentive tax breaks to companies working on the electric car, they can heavily tax those companies that do not produce an electric car within five years, they can increase the MPG requirements, they can reduce the EPA’s auto emissions maximum, but none of these things will actually force a given auto company to build an electric car.

And I can certainly appreciate that our entire economy is built on everyone accepting those little pieces of paper as wealth when they really mean next to nothing. And I certainly question whether any of the staggering amounts of debt are sustainable, but the system as a whole, I believe, can survive.

I think essentially our point of disagreement is actually even simpler. When I look within the system, I see an enormous volume of problems, but I also see enormous potential when working within the system. When you look within the system, you see all the problems and look for a better way. Correct me if I’m wrong, but we’re seeing the same problems and looking for the same solution, just from opposite sides of the problem. I’m not entirely sure.

I’m working off of traditional Marxist socialism…I get the feeling now that that’s not what you’re looking at. Am I right?

Also, I’d argue we’re starting to have socialism of the very backwards kind i.e. socializing the ginormous losses of all these banking institutions but apparently privatizing all the gains to these shareholders and executives, who, under the principles of capitalism and free market ideology, should be the ones taking the losses and heading to the poorhouse instead of growing fat on obscene bonuses paid for by public money. Instead, collectively we are being forced to buy this debt and have it be paid down by multiple generations of taxpayers in the hopes that they’ll eventually bring about some return, which is insane and immoral. If the free marketeers are so confident about their system and the value of these shares, why are WE being forced to buy into the losses? Even under the most extreme libertarian priniciples, people shouldn’t be coerced into paying for these losses.

And I’d REALLY have to contend with you that capitalism is not undergoing CPR. All these bank bailouts are CPR. There’s several trillion dollars of fake debt wealth out there created out of wholesale mortgage fraud and arcane credit instruments. The claims on wealth in this country are potentially 4 to 5 times what actual GDP is. Almost half of the world’s GDP is in question right now. Your average person right now should not only be questioning whether or not any of this is sustainable, but also whether or not the system its borne out of will even survive as it has.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WW1003o7ZzQ

Our point of disagreement here is simple. You’re more economically libertarian, while I’m more of the belief that the economy should be guided and reasonably regulated by the public and its institutions. Fact is, technology exists out there that isn’t being fully exploited and distributed under capitalism. We can put research, production, and marketing into that instead of arms. We can make the use of oil and coal for fuel obsolete, build more efficient means of transportation, refurbish our schools, go Manhattan Project on cancer and other horrible diseases, and a whole list of other stuff. If the US gov is running at a loss, at least run at a loss building things that could spur a new economy. That’s not gonna happen giving welfare to undead banks with seemingly no end in sight.

I’m not of the belief that the market has the right to determine everything, just like God doesn’t have the right to determine whether or not I want to fornicate.

The first major problem with it is that human nature requires some type of status symbol to differentiate you from the shmuck across the street. Socialism by itself does not produce anything like that…you’d need something more.

The second major problem is that socialism essentially requires an authoritarian government to take control and deal with the transition. We don’t have one of those, and most of us wouldn’t put up with one either. The biggest problem with that, however, is that history has shown that, once in power, people tend not to want to just walk out of it – and that is what socialism expects.

So no, I don’t think capitalism is going anywhere – no matter its flaws, it is the best system we have – but I don’t argue that a partial nationalization of the banks is a bad thing. As an investor in the banks, the goverment might make more money, and they’ll have a good-sized vote in the major issues the banks deal with, like lending practices.

In fact, I’m afraid I have to argue with your assertion that they’re giving capitalism CPR at all. Capitalism inherently takes full advantage of human nature, and while this does mean that occasionally someone will take advantage of the system, it means that the general movement of capitalism will be up, not down. The market will recover…it always has.

I have no problem with changing production away from weapons, but…to what? Basic economics shows that people will produce what will bring them the most immediate profit. Long-term projects just aren’t very profitable for some time, and therefore get shoved off to the back burner. And there’s no way to change that – give people tax credits for having long-term projects, and that won’t get them to work on the projects. Other production, like microchips and oil, is already running at the maximum profit for the markets that exist.
To change weapons production to something else, you’d have to do one of two things: either develop something entirely new that everyone needs, or develop a brand new market for an existing product (which is highly unlikely condsidering that the entire globe is already accessible.)

I am, of course, open to other ideas…I just don’t see any.

And if you’re wondering, I consider myself a liberal/libertarian.

Dismantling a war-based economy would require another mass mobilization doing other stuff, and there’s a LOT of other stuff that can be done in this country aside from building weapons and hiring people to shoot them. But I don’t see that happening until we’re actually in a depression-type situation.

I love Obama, and a lot of good things are rearing their heads i.e. bank nationalization, drug legalization, a more progressive tax system. But I voted for him fully knowing he was going to be another steward of capitalism, in this case trying to give it CPR. And on those grounds, he and the rest of the country have to be pushed to stop the CPR, let capitalism die its natural death like feudalism before it, and come together to build something new, more sustainable, and revolutionary.