48
what's something you believe strongly but have little knowledge about
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2025
48 points (94.4% liked)
Asklemmy
49643 readers
684 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Economics. I think they're inexplicable, and yet clearly something is working.
I believe that the fact that there's a saying, "get four economist in a room and you'll get five opinions" is evidence that no one truly understands economics, but many only (wrongly) think they do. I personally believe it's a glitch in the matrix, a hot patch thrown in by developers when the simulation unexpectedly evolved beyond the capacity for barter/trade to handle the scale of the systems. It wasn't well or thoroughly designed, and frequently crashes (like the big one in the 30's, and periodic smaller ones since).
And yet... there's clearly something there.
Mainstream economists don't understand economics since they dumped out the LTV in XIX century. Current science of economics is basically a cult writting plausible sounding justifications for capitalism.
As @PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml said, Marxist economics are sound and they work. The problem is that the conclusions of Marxist economics point to it being unquestionably correct to move beyond capitalism and into socialism, so the capitalist status-quo spends more time trying to make up any excuses they can to keep the gravy train going for that little bit longer. Liberal economists can't form a consensus because it's all based on rejection of working economic theory.
It's even earlier, Marx himself noted that conclusion of LTV itself is socialism and indeed all the economists basing on Ricardo's work arrived at this point. Marx was just completely conscious in his tries and used dialectical materialism unlike others to develop a scientific socialism, thus his theory was the best one. He also noted that this necessity was why the pet economists of capitalists needed to take a step back and turned mainstream political economisc into the superficial justifications of capitalism, that happened with J.S. Mill Junior iirc.
Definitely true! The LTV of course predates Marx, and could easily be used as justification for socialism. I was more referring to the problems with Smith's and Ricardo's work that Marx resolved, giving an even better justification that only points towards socialism.
Yeah other socialist theoreticians fumbled over idealism and several other issues, Marx literally wrote volumes about it (Theories of Surplus Value plus a lot in his other works, he was incredibly well versed in history of economic thought).
Yep! I'm working my way through volume 2 of Capital right now, getting into turnover time, and Marx is about to start discussing Smith and the physiocrats.
Volume 2 is the most dry one, it's nearly entirely about capital circulation.
I know ๐ซ volume 1 had fun metaphors and worked in examples, plus you could really feel Marx's anger. It's a much more engaging work. That being said, volume 2 has been very eye-opening so far, just like volume 1 was, so I'm sticking with it. Should be done with volume 3 early next year at the pace I'm at.
I don't agree on this point, because I think communism is predicated on selflessness, and there's a decent amount of evidence that we're only selfless on the small scale (communities โ 150 ppl). Without selflessness, communism depends on authoritarianism, forcing people to be selfless and work for the greater good.
Capitalism has enjoyed relative success because it is predicated on selfishness. It's not necessarily better for society, but the fact that there are no large, successful communisms is pretty strong evidence that it exploits humanity's baser nature. I don't see communism working outside of either small, isolated communities, or in idealized, hypothetical thought experiments.
Communism isn't predicated on selflessness, nor is capitalism predicated on selfishness. Socialism/communism are predicated on public ownership and direction of production, while capitalism is predicated on private. The superstuctural elements like ideology are not the driving factors, the underlying base is. The superstructure comes from the base, and reinforces it, but does not decide whether it works or not.
Secondly, all states are authoritarian, they are all extensions of the ruling class. The degree that authority is exerted is a direct reaction to circumstance. Nazi Germany and modern Germany are both authoritarian and both ruled by the bourgeoisie, the reason Nazi Germany is seen as more authoritarian is because the economy was in dire straits and the capitalist class needed to violently crush dissent and assert itself in order to protect the existing property relations. Modern Germany is not opposed to the same violent repression, it just lacks the current necessity to do so, outside of crushing pro-Palestinian protestors.
Finally, socialism works. Socialist economies run by communist parties have had remarkable success in achieving high rates of economic growth and uplifting the working class. The largest and most significant economy in the world today is the PRC, which is socialist. People who say "communism/socialism don't work" are largely pointing to the dissolution of the USSR, but the Soviet Union worked remarkably well until it liberalized and undermined its own system based on centralized planning. The reintroduction of capitalism to Eastern Europe was devastating, killing 7 million people and resulting in lowered life expectancy, skyrocketing drug abuse, human trafficking, poverty, wealth disparity, and more.
I think you would do well to investigate the topic further, as you already admitted you haven't really done so yet, so this is a great opportunity.
Not explicitly, but by virtue is human nature. I should have phrased it as a requirement for it to function without authoritarian control, which we'll bicker about in a bit.
Again, hard disagree. You're stating a useless tautology: if everything is authoritarian, the word has no useful meaning. If you believe we live in a universe without free will, then we exist in an authoritarian universe, and debate is pointless. There are degrees of control, and some systems have more than others. Living in a prison is different than living in Stalin's USSR, which is different than living in Russia today, which is different than living in Sweden today. Only a fool would insist they're equivalent.
Socialism is not communism. Socialism allows for private property and individual rewards for contributions; communism seeks complete state control over all resources and a classless society.
Not every society is authoritarian. Tribal, classless societies were not so, they had no state. A fully collectivized, ie communist system will have no class, and thus no need for one class to oppress others, ie is not authoritarian. Every existing society in between those is authoritarian, from the feudal lords to the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, each ruling class will wield the state and thus authority to resolve class contradictions. I already explained the differences in degrees of oppression, and how they depend more on circumstances than an implicit desire for control. It's better for the proletariat to be in charge than the bourgeoisie.
Socialism is pre-communism. Socialism is a mode of production where the large firms and key industries are publicly owned and controlled, ie the PRC, Cuba, and former USSR. Communism is when all production globally has been collectivized, and thus is classless, and therefore stateless (though not without management, administration, or planning). Further, even collectivized systems allow for rewards for individual contributions, no socialist country in history has had equal pay, Marx railed against "equalitarians." The process of sublimating all property is a gradual one, private property in socialism is something expected to vanish over time as firms grow and are folded into the collectivized system.
Finally, "human nature" has nothing to do with our conversation. I don't see why you think communism can only work at a small scale, when the opposite is the case, communism can only be realized globally. I think you're mixing up anarchist economics with Marxist economics.