General Discussion

DireStrike

(6,452 posts)

14. Not quite, you would still have competing enterprises and markets.

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 04:39 PM

Dec 2012

Production would still be for profit, not for need, and there is no guarantee of income or position in these enterprises. And it doesn't even touch the distribution side. What some call "market socialism", which is kind of incoherent when taken altogether.

But the contradictions between worker owned enterprise and capitalist statehood lead to either a socialist state, or a violent end to workers' power. Dialectically, anyway.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

79 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Paul Krugman rediscovers Marxism--what's next? Fire? The wheel? [View all] Starry Messenger Dec 2012 OP

Indeed, Ma'am: The Flash Of the Obvious Is Blinding.... The Magistrate Dec 2012 #1

This from a guy who once said-- Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #3

'And it has really uncomfortable implications' leftstreet Dec 2012 #2

I've been morbidly giggling about this article for days. Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #4

This little glitch (I refuse to call it a problem) is easily solved by a move to employee owned 1-Old-Man Dec 2012 #5

I don't know if it is easily solved? Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #6

That is...drumroll... nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #7

Not quite, you would still have competing enterprises and markets. DireStrike Dec 2012 #14

You should read Marx, just saying. nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #32

Any particular works/sections? DireStrike Dec 2012 #43

Well, Das Kapital is a few volumes nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #44

Honestly, Capital is too heavy for most people. DireStrike Dec 2012 #50

People won't take a stab at the Wealth nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #51

Marx agrees, as long as "living wage" means "exactly the cost of life and reproduction". DireStrike Dec 2012 #58

Socialism is not limited to Marxism, but a much wider concept tama Dec 2012 #74

Kind of like Christopher Columbus "discovering" America or something... limpyhobbler Dec 2012 #8

Krugs is happy to accept the boom and bust, wealth and misery, as long as Keynes is there byeya Dec 2012 #10

I agree with you, I think this is probably a temporary wobble in his world-view. Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #11

Yes, he was stunned by the ignorance and wobbled but he's still all capitalism all the time but with byeya Dec 2012 #15

I agree with all that--plus the Red Scare which was really aimed at killing labor. Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #16

To regain clout, labor somehow(and will need many allies) needs to rid the nation of 14(b); byeya Dec 2012 #17

If Rick Snyder signs... pbrower2a Dec 2012 #30

We can only hope......... socialist_n_TN Dec 2012 #68

Krugman won't lead any charge - TBF Dec 2012 #54

Mwahaha! Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #59

The myth that all capitalism needs is a pinch of reform and a dash of regulation is very useful entanglement Dec 2012 #47

He knows who butters his bread. Like all but the tiniest fringe of rich people, they don't Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #45

Uncle Whiskers made a lot of mistakes but he got it right when it counted! byeya Dec 2012 #9

Seriously! lol Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #13

I think Krugman's point doesn't support Marxism at all. gulliver Dec 2012 #12

In my opinion, making Marxism a forbidden word when used in a positive context, stems byeya Dec 2012 #18

That's how I feel too. Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #19

I'm old. I have never seen the ruling class so brazen about their intent to grab all they can from byeya Dec 2012 #20

Thank you for all of that byeya. Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #24

Is MF for "Mutual Fund" or...? tama Dec 2012 #75

You can add to that the collosal betrayal of socialism by Stalin n/t entanglement Dec 2012 #48

Du rec. Nt xchrom Dec 2012 #21

Since manufacturing is a small percent of workforce, automated manufacturing has a modest effect FarCenter Dec 2012 #22

We're already living with that to a certain extent. Make a phone call and you get byeya Dec 2012 #23

My favorite example is the self-service gas station FarCenter Dec 2012 #25

That and the automated check out lines at the grocery store. limpyhobbler Dec 2012 #28

Good point. First agriculture employed most workers in the US, then manufacturing. pampango Dec 2012 #33

or maybe it will leave 10% providing specialized services and most of the rest as a dispossessed HiPointDem Dec 2012 #35

Not sure of your point. If manufacturing does not provide 10%, 20%, 30% of the jobs, we are doomed? pampango Dec 2012 #36

lawn-mowing is a service. it doesn't provide an income that can support a family, generally HiPointDem Dec 2012 #38

The two are only casually related Spike89 Dec 2012 #52

no, most entertainers make nowhere near enough to support 100 families. most entertainers HiPointDem Dec 2012 #53

You are right, it was hyperbole, but the point is jobs change Spike89 Dec 2012 #55

yes, jobs change. that fact is basically irrelevant to the direction of the distribution of wealth HiPointDem Dec 2012 #56

No, actually I agree. only casually related Spike89 Dec 2012 #57

i think the mix of production v. service actually does matter, though. production produces new HiPointDem Dec 2012 #62

Ah, that is where we differ Spike89 Dec 2012 #63

You're not understanding me. I'm talking about international trade. You can't trade lawnmowing HiPointDem Dec 2012 #64

Actually, they do cover the bills Spike89 Dec 2012 #65

service exports weren't covering hard goods imports last time i checked the trade figures. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #66

Because we don't track it correctly Spike89 Dec 2012 #67

wtf are you talking about? we track the *cash flow* & that's what matters. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #71

Socialism means most fundamentally tama Dec 2012 #77

i will be happy to cheer on the reduction of work hours when it appears it's going to come with HiPointDem Dec 2012 #78

That's already happened to a huge extent, look at McDonalds. joshcryer Dec 2012 #70

Fossile capitalism tama Dec 2012 #76

So he will discover Climate Change and become an Anarcho Primitivist NoOneMan Dec 2012 #26

Hey now, the anarchs may be primitivists, but they're not monkeys. JackRiddler Dec 2012 #27

haha. whoops NoOneMan Dec 2012 #29

Yes we are tama Dec 2012 #79

Actually, I Thought Everyone Had Been Complaining About On the Road Dec 2012 #31

yes, paul, it has uncomfortable implications. HiPointDem Dec 2012 #34

An 18th century economic system controlled by a 9th century class system ruling over Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #37

Ouch. Starry Messenger Dec 2012 #39

'A 9th century class system' - that would be Feudalism, yes? Or did coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #40

No, I meant 9th century, but it is merely a convenient period from western European history. Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #41

+1 Hissyspit Dec 2012 #42

Do robots manufacture robots? mmonk Dec 2012 #46

Since you asked...yes nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #49

The rational part of me is scared... white_wolf Dec 2012 #61

Yeah and Krugman isn't the only one. In the last few years......... socialist_n_TN Dec 2012 #60

This is why I dropped economics in school. It doesn't allow you to see the patently obvious. joshcryer Dec 2012 #69

Econ was a required gen ed course for me and it really made no sense. white_wolf Dec 2012 #72

It was for me as well for some reason. I actually quit school entirely. joshcryer Dec 2012 #73