Thursday, February 14, 2019

Barkley Rosser — Who Is Really A Socialist? [Updated]


Barkley Rosser either makes a bad mistake in starting with Marx's definition of "socialism" as state-ownership of the means of production as exclusive, or he is carrying water for the ownership class that uses this arbitrary definition to demonize the opposition to its rent-seeking and parasitic rent extraction, e.g., by socializing negative externality, the result of which is now climate change. I suspect that he was shooting from the hip and shot himself in the foot instead of hitting his target. Disappointing for a smart guy. On the other hand, I often disagree with his analysis when it exceeds the scope of his field, which is economics within the scope of the conventional approach to it. Such is the case here, in my view, although he does bring it non-economic factors.

Wikipedia:
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' self-management of the means of production[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperativeownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] with social ownership being the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]
Socialist systems are divided into non-market and market forms.[16] Non-market socialism involves the substitution of factor markets and money with engineering and technical criteria based on calculation performed in-kind, thereby producing an economic mechanism that functions according to different economic laws from those of capitalism. Non-market socialism aims to circumvent the inefficiencies and crises traditionally associated with capital accumulation and the profit system.[25]By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices, factor markets and in some cases the profit motive, with respect to the operation of socially owned enterprises and the allocation of capital goods between them. Profits generated by these firms would be controlled directly by the workforce of each firm, or accrue to society at large in the form of a social dividend.[26][27][28] The socialist calculation debate concerns the feasibility and methods of resource allocation for a socialist system.
Socialist politics has been both internationalist and nationalist in orientation; organised through political parties and opposed to party politics; at times overlapping with trade unions, and at other times independent and critical of unions; and present in both industrialised and developing nations.[29] Originating within the socialist movement, social democracy has embraced a mixed economy with a market that includes substantial state intervention in the form of income redistribution, regulation, and a welfare state. Economic democracy proposes a sort of market socialism where there is more decentralized control of companies, currencies, investments, and natural resources.
In particular, critics of "socialism" that charge it is a failed system that history exposes as inferior ignore a factor that I regard as the most salient one, namely, the ferocious opposition and actual violent attacks of the capitalist, so-called liberal order  (read "bourgeois liberal" plutonomy)  on any hint of social power and control that would limit the power and control of the privileged elite and which imposes a dictatorship of the ruling class through their minions, behind a facade of representative democracy. In the US, for instance, the a bipartisan establishment is rife with corruption, much of it legalized.

Economists simply are not in a position to hold themselves out as experts capable of commenting definitively on these matters since they have put so many relevant factor beyond the scope of their subject matter. The result is an economics devoid of connection with reality.

In the real world, capitalism has been linked historically with imperialism and colonialism. Neoliberalism can be viewed as joined at the hip with neo-imperialism and neocolonialism. Neoconservative and liberal internationalism/interventionism are both based on "spreading freedom and democracy" which is equated with economic liberal as bourgeois liberalism, which is liberal chiefly in the sense that powerful elites are enabled by capture of the state to extract rent without limitation and to do so globally, backed by a powerful military and control of the global financial system.

This is becoming especially important now that "socialism" is becoming a hot topic and economists think that they are are in a position to be best informed about it and comment on it. That is not necessarily so. Very few have the breadth and depth of knowledge of Michael Hudson, for instance.

Socialism involves not only economics, but also other fields such as political theory, sociology, anthropology, history, general systems theory, psychology, and philosophy.

Oh, and did I forget physics, you know, like neoclassical economics is trying to imitate? See Albert Einstein, Why Socialism?

Is genuine socialism best characterized in terms of government that is actually "of the people, by the people and for the people" rather than being controlled by a ruling class and operated for special interests as a representative democracy under capitalism and the way the US was really organized under the Constitution?

Econospeak
Who Is Really A Socialist?
J. Barkley Rosser | Professor of Economics and Business Administration James Madison University

UPDATED

Yves Smith weighs in here. Useful in my view, but also incomplete. She also ignores the political aspect of external pressure, including threat of force and actual force, that I brought in above. It is very difficult to disentangle the social, political, financial and economic, especially when it involves key international and geopolitical input. Characterizing "socialism" based on such historical examples is naive, in my view.

For example, is Venezuela a "failed state" entirely owing to "socialist" policy or in part, even great part, owing to US pressure since Chavez, including a former coup attempt. Moreover, the sorry state that Venezuela was in prior to Chavez and which underlay his rise was a result of the comprador government that served as US puppet, a state to which is the US is working reestablish there. Simlarly, a great deal of Soviet and Red Chinese policy was a response to pressure, threat of force and actual application of force from the "free world" dominated by "capitalism" as the mortal enemy of "socialism"

Moreover, "capitalism" and "socialism" are such high level abstractions they are difficult to define technically in a way that can be measured quantitatively. And quantitative modeling is a sine qua non of science these days. Otherwise it is speculative in a way that is undecidable on data-based evidence. However, to reduce the problem to what is measurable often excludes material factors that are relevant. So the end-result is based on opinion, which famously suffers from cognitive bias, including ideological bias.

23 comments:

Magpie said...

@Hickey

You don't like the question who is a socialist. And you don't accept Rosser's answer.
Fair enough.

Let me then ask and answer a different question.

Question: Who is not a socialist?

Answer: You. You are not a socialist.

Neither was Keynes for that matter. He was a liberal with fascistoid tendencies: an elitist, with little appreciation for democracy, eugenicist, anti-Semite. But one thing you have to give Keynes credit for: he never claimed to be a socialist. On this -- and uncharacteristically on him -- he was honest.

How about you?

Andrew Anderson said...

In particular, critics of "socialism" that charge it is a failed system that history exposes as inferior ignore a factor that I regard as the most salient one, namely, the ferocious opposition and actual violent attacks of the capitalist, so-called liberal order (read "bourgeois liberal" plutonomy) ... Tom Hickey

So we can't have socialism ANYWHERE unless we have it EVERYWHERE?

And by then, it's too late to admit one's mistake?

Try harder, Hickey.

Hint: Increased privileges for the banks is the WRONG direction to go.

Tom Hickey said...

Magpie asks, "How about you?"

I have never claimed to be a "socialist" as far as I recall. I have self-identified as a left libertarian, a libertarian being one that prioritizes freedom. I am a peculiar one though, in that I am also a traditionalist in important respects.

High level abstractions like "socialism" and 'capitalism" are useful in organizing but they are limiting if not also deconstructed to articulate nuance. I have not attempted this in any detail here wrt my own views, which remain in the background. All knowledge systems, social, political, economics, etc. rest on such foundations, which most people never examine.

As person trained in philosophy, I am chiefly concerned with philosophical foundations in terms of fundamental assumptions — logical, ontological, epistemological, and ethical. This involves such fields as the logic of meaning and the logic of justification, which most have not studied and are not qualified to discuss intelligently. Most relegate these matters to presumptions that constitute hidden assumptions. I don't view MNE as a venue to pursue that, so I have skirted it for the most part as beyond the scope of this blog, other than to engage superficially when necessary.

I have said that I am a left libertarian. But not so much ideologically, in a way that can be labeled, as holding that freedom is a sine qua non, hence the starting point. Open inquiry and informed debate are not possible without it. I have explained the difference among freedom-from, freedom-to, and freedom-for. They need to be integrated holistically. Freedom-for requires freedom-to, and freedom-to requires freedom-from.

Libertarians in general agree that the tyranny of the majority is a challenge. My left libertarianism is based on rights to address this. Philosophically, the concept of right is a can of worms. So I keep my discussion of it here to a minimum, accepting that there are rights and citing, e.g, the Universal Declaration. The importance of bringing in the concept of right to a "libertarian" context lies in recognizing the need to integrate individuals and networks of individuals in social systems involving governance, institutions, community, etc. This also brings in the rule of law rather than "the rule of men."

So left libertarian needs to be a "socialist" in some sense in contrast to the strong view of individualism of right libertarianism. For left liberals, individuals are circumscribed by the rights of others and responsibilities to others. This brings in traditionalism.

Tom Hickey said...

Oh wait, I forgot that I did previously set forth what I considered to be a fundamental criterion for a country to be considered "socialist."

Public (social) control of the commanding heights, although control doesn't necessarily imply ownership.

That is a personal view and not part of a worked-up political theory. It's a working definition that may or may not turn out to be useful. I don't have a definitive view on this. Basically, it's a safeguard against oligarchy.

Andrew Anderson said...

For left liberals, individuals are circumscribed by the rights of others ... Tom Hickey

So where do special privileges for the banks and the most so-called "credit worthy", the rich, fit into your pious claims?

AXEC / E.K-H said...

Cross-posting

Socialism and scientific incompetence
Comment on David Ruccio on ‘Socialism and exploitation’

There is no such thing as economics. There are TWO fundamentally different types of economics: political economics and theoretical economics. The main differences are: (i) The goal of political economics is to successfully push an agenda, the goal of theoretical economics is to successfully explain how the actual economy works. (ii) In political economics anything goes; in theoretical economics, the scientific standards of material and formal consistency are observed.

For non-economists, the most important thing is to realize is that theoretical economics (= science) had been hijacked from the very beginning by political economists (= agenda pushers). Political economics has produced NOTHING of scientific value in the last 200+ years. Economics is a failed science. The four main approaches ― Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism ― are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent, and all got the foundational concept of the subject matter ― profit ― wrong.

As a result, since Adam Smith/Karl Marx economic policy guidance NEVER had sound scientific foundations. Economists of all colors sell proto-scientific garbage in the bluff package of science.

This, of course, holds also for Marxianism:
• Marx’s profit theory is provably false.#1
• By consequence, the concepts of exploitation and classes are false. Marx lacks the concept of cross-over exploitation.#2, #3
• Because the foundational concepts are false, Marx’s whole analytical superstructure is false.
• Because the theory is defective, Marxian economic policy guidance was bound to fail from the very beginning.#4, #5
• After-Marxians have not spotted Marx’s foundational blunder to this day.#6, #7
• Marxians are scientifically incompetent just like non-Marxians and all together are only employable as useful political idiots.

Because both Capitalism and Socialism have no sound scientific foundations, their respective economic policies are not much more than blind political agenda pushing. Never forget that both left-wing and right-wing economists do NOT know what profit is and how the actual monetary economy works.

David Ruccio concludes: “Workers, especially young workers, are suffering the consequences of increased exploitation and beginning to look beyond capitalism, to different ways of organizing the U.S. economy and society.” If so, what is their winning formula? Go for it but do NOT think that economists have any solutions for you or that they are of any help. Forget this Capitalism/Socialism thing. Since 200+ years, economists are incompetent blatherers who are too stupid for the elementary mathematics that underlies macroeconomics. Independent of their political color, economists have always been a real hazard to their fellow citizens.#8

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#1 Profit for Marxists
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2414301

#2 Capitalism, poverty, exploitation, and cross-over exploitation
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/04/capitalism-poverty-exploitation-and.html

#3 If we only had classes
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/10/if-we-only-had-classes.html

#4 Ricardo, too, got profit theory wrong. Sad!
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/02/ricardo-too-got-profit-theory-wrong-sad.html

#5 Ricardo and the invention of class war
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/02/ricardo-and-invention-of-class-war.html

#6 MMT and Marxism ― blather as immunizing stratagem
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2019/02/mmt-and-marxism-blather-as-immunizing.html

#7 MMT ― backstop or advanced life support for the Oligarchy?
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2019/02/mmt-backstop-or-advanced-life-support.html

#8 Econogenics in action
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2019/01/econogenics-in-action.html

Magpie said...

I have self-identified as a left libertarian, a libertarian being one that prioritizes freedom. I am a peculiar one though, in that I am also a traditionalist in important respects.

So, what you are is a liberal. The only question left is how traditionalist you are: more or less than Keynes. Frankly, I couldn't care less.

Barkley Rosser either makes a bad mistake in starting with Marx's definition of "socialism" as state-ownership of the means of production as exclusive, or he is carrying water for the ownership class that uses this arbitrary definition to demonize the opposition to its rent-seeking and parasitic rent extraction, e.g., by socializing negative externality, the result of which is now climate change.

No. Socialism is ownership of the means of production.

But what I find really infuriating is your broken-record obsession that identifying socialism with the ownership of the means of production is used by the ownership class "to demonize the opposition to its rent-seeking and parasitic rent extraction". The silly, against all hope, insistence that if one sells oneself as an anti-Marxist socialist, one will gain the acceptance of the "ownership class".

It doesn't fucking work.

Prof. Kelton has never defended expropriating the "ownership class". In fact, she has rich friends and what she proposes is not meant to hurt them:

The Wealthy Are Victims of Their Own Propaganda
To escape higher taxes, they must embrace deficits.

By Stephanie Kelton, February 2, 2019, 2:00 AM GMT+11
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-01/rich-must-embrace-deficits-to-escape-taxes

Warren Mosler himself is a capitalist who boasts being friends with Donald Rumsfeld. That I am aware, no single leading MMTer (including Bill Mitchell) has ever proposed the expropriation of the means of production.

And you have yourself documented all the opposition MMT is facing. Just in the last week:

Nassim Taleb
Ryan Bourne — Let America's radical socialists be a warning to British politics
Ben Kritz — The Dangerous Appeal Of MMT
Ted Nolan — 'Cum Laude'
Tim Worstall — Zimbabwe’s Third Time Lucky – The Return Of The Zim$

Bob Roddis may not be the sharpest tool in the toolshed, but he has seen me arguing with you about this. And witnessing your bona fide anti-Marxism or non-Marxism has not persuaded him. For him Marxist socialist and respectable, non-Marxist "socialist" is pretty much the same shit.

In fact, not one of those critics, that I am aware of, has ever criticised MMT on the grounds that MMTers want to expropriate the means of production. Not one.

So, what gives?

----------

Put yourself in the shoes of a member of the "ownership class". Leftist libertarians, respectable non-Marxist socialists, New Labourites, Clintonites/Obamanites, new Keynesians, old Keynesians, post Keynesians, MMTers, all claim to be your friends and on that account they want your support to run the show. Well, maybe they really are your friends. But you're still better off being the boss yourself.

You can claim to be a good manager for capitalism. They want to be the managers. That ain't rocket science.

Tom Hickey said...

@ Magpie

Marx and Marxists don't own "socialism."

It happens to be a term whose meaning is in flux in ordinary language. I rather like the Wikipedia approach, which reflects this.

Yeah, it makes the socialism of Marx squishy. But that's how history has unfolded.

Marx was not a "socialist" other than in a narrow sense he defined. It is more accurate to say that he was a communist. It's not the Socialist Manifesto, but rather the Communist Manifesto.

I am not disparaging Marx here. I actually agree with Marx that this is the direction of progress, and I am a "communist" with a small "c" aspirationally. I haven't achieved the requisite level of universality to make that an actually, however, so it remains an aspiration that I am working on.

Jesus and his followers had a common purse. and his early followers "held all things in common." Of course, Christianity later explained this away after the letter began to replace the spirit, and institutional religion arose.

"Now all the believers were together and held all things in common. They sold their possessions and property and distributed the proceeds to all, as anyone had a need," (Acts 2:44-45)

"Now the large group of those who believed were of one heart and mind, and no one said that any of his possessions was his own, but instead they held everything in common. And the apostles were giving testimony with great power to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was on all of them. For there was not a needy person among them, because all those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet. This was then distributed for each person’s basic needs." (Acts 4:32-35)
(NASB 95)

But contra Marx, I don't agree that that is either exclusively or chiefly a determinate of the mode of production. In my view it is the reflection of the level of collective consciousness revealed in culture and institutions. This requires a level of universality that is remote at this time. It will come from spiritual awakening rather than a reorganization of material conditions. I am a traditionalist in this sense.

I don't say this lightly or offhandedly. As a trained philosopher and someone that has endeavored to develop greater universality in life, I can say that this task is daunting. Indeed, it is similar in many respects to the spiritual path work set forth in perennial wisdom and also pursued spontaneously by "great souls" such as Gandhi, although he was arguably following a spiritual path. Very few people have been able to achieve this and exhibit it socially. Karl and Jenny were quite exceptional people. Their level of self-sacrifice was impressive, and without a sufficiently developed level of universality they could not have endured it as well as they did.

In my view, Marx went off the rails in his commitment to materialism. He seems to have believed in wagging the dog's tail, i.e, creating an altruistic culture by abolishing private property. The whole theory of "the dictatorship of the proletariat" eventually developing into the withering way of the state and the rising of natural spontaneous order based on "from each according to ability and to each according to need" was naive. It's an assumption with no basis in reality.

Andrew Anderson said...

For there was not a needy person among them, because all those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet. Acts of the Apostles

And yet later Paul was quite a few times begging for the "poor saints in Jerusalem."

Nor was Communism the rule in the Old Testament but roughly equal ownership of the means of production with laws to keep it that way (Deuteronomy 23:19-20, Leviticus 25, etc.) and with RIGHTS for the needy (gleaning, 3rd year tithe, etc.)

And your mistake, Tom, seems to be to assume that in the Bible the justice due A may be "sacrificed" by B without A's consent in order to help C. But the giving in Acts was entirely voluntarily:

Acts 5:1-11 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came over all who heard of it. The young men got up and covered him up, and after carrying him out, they buried him.

Now there elapsed an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter responded to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for such and such a price?” And she said, “Yes, that was the price.” Then Peter said to her, “Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out as well.” And immediately she fell at his feet and breathed her last, and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear came over the whole church, and over all who heard of these things.
Acts 5:1-11

The sin of Ananias and his wife was NOT in withholding a portion of the price they received for the land but in LYING about donating ALL of it.

Scripture is full of snares for hasty concluders ...

Magpie said...

@Hickey

Marx and Marxists don't own "socialism."

It happens to be a term whose meaning is in flux in ordinary language. I rather like the Wikipedia approach, which reflects this.


The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Persuade Bob Roddis (who is probably reading this) or Timbo Worst-of-all (who might be reading this) that your "socialism" is better than the Marxist socialism. Explain to them that under your "socialism" everybody will be better off: capitalists and workers. Tell them that you are better managers of capitalism than capitalists themselves. I dare you. Go ahead.

----------

Incidentally, you claim not to be socialist. How come now you own your own and universally better version of "socialism" ®?

You want to have your cake and eat it too.

Magpie said...

By the way, so you like the "Wikipedia approach", don't you?

You mean the same approach which just so happens to be the Pilkington/"Lord Keynes" approach of editing Wikipedia entries to fit their ideologies. Yes?

The same approach that, by those coincidences of life, made Barkley Rosser return his "Post Keynesian/Kaldorian Church" identity card here:

How I Came To No Longer Be A Kaldorian Economist
Wednesday, September 27, 2017
http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2017/09/how-i-came-to-no-longer-be-kaldorian.html

Magpie said...

This is the "Wikipedia approach" that you like, explained by Andreas Kolbe, who identifies himself as "Wikipedian since 2006, former co-editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost".

To the question "How reliable is Wikipedia as a source of information, and why?" Kolbe answers:

It varies. The first thing to understand is that Wikipedia is not a static reference work; it’s edited thousands of times an hour, and its articles are constantly changing and evolving. An article that is in good shape today may be in poor shape tomorrow, and vice versa. The second thing is that Wikipedia quality is very variable, depending on the topic – the spectrum ranges from truly outstanding articles to complete nonsense, along with anything in between.

Let me give you examples of some topic areas where Wikipedia has been reported to have had problems in recent years:

Plastic surgery articles on Wikipedia have at times been edited in promotional ways by plastic surgeons:


A little further down Kolbe writes:

Articles on socially and politically controversial topics can sometimes be biased and one-sided, or see-saw from one extreme to the next – this includes articles on controversial religious movements, for example, or abortion, or controversial regimes:

Walled gardens of corruption (Wikipedia Signpost) - Wikipedia

As you can see from the examples in the press reports above, problems are most likely to occur in relatively obscure or specialist articles that aren’t diligently watched.


To conclude:

Speaking generally, you should make it a habit to check Wikipedia’s sources (they’re footnoted, and listed at the end of each Wikipedia article) for any information you would like to use. And if there isn’t a source, or the source doesn’t bear Wikipedia out, or it’s a poor-quality source, well, then take the information with a very large grain of salt: it’s no more likely to be accurate than what a stranger tells you in the pub.

The whole enchilada:
https://www.quora.com/How-reliable-is-Wikipedia-as-a-source-of-information-and-why

Noah Way said...

Capitalism is an economic system that is laser focused on the accumulation of financial wealth by any means and has no concern for citizens (anywhere).

Socialism is not an economic system, it is a social system that uses economics for the benefit of the people (all of them instead of just a few).

Democracy is a code word for capitalism. The goal of capitalism is to destroy any system that competes with it. Thus the actions against of countries that nationalized resources for the benefit of their own citizens (Iraq, the Soviet Union [now Russia], Libya, Venezuela, etc. being prime examples). Thus the spreading of 'democracy' at the barrel of a gun.

Tom Hickey said...

@ Magpie

You correctly note that Wikipedia is uneven as a source and then go on to conclude that everything on Wikipedia is unreliable rather than merely suspect. That does not follow. There's a lot of good info on Wikipedia and also a lot of that is not.

You quote:
Speaking generally, you should make it a habit to check Wikipedia’s sources (they’re footnoted, and listed at the end of each Wikipedia article) for any information you would like to use. And if there isn’t a source, or the source doesn’t bear Wikipedia out, or it’s a poor-quality source, well, then take the information with a very large grain of salt: it’s no more likely to be accurate than what a stranger tells you in the pub.

Scholars, which I plead guilty to being, are trained to check all references. (Think Rogoff and Reinhart). Scholars regard failure to do this unprofessional among peers and naive and credulous in the case of non-peers.

I happen to the think that the Wikipedia definition of socialism reflects pretty well what I observe to be the current range of meaning. I regard this as a good thing for a reason. Rejecting the b&w distinction between "socialism" and "capitalism," a lot of people now are backing into what they identify as "socialism" through social democracy and a mixed economy, for instance. I look to a gradual transition, which Marx as sociologist suggests, rather than a sudden transformation in the direction of utopia through violent revolution.

I understand Marxist-Leninist argument for revolution, however, and there are points of debate there that I think are well-taken and, in fact, crucial to establishing change once it comes. But is liquidation of the bourgeoisie wise, just, necessary or even sufficient to effect a transition and prevent a resurgence? Or might that be end up being a replay of the "Jacobinism" of the French Revolution that led to the Reign of Terror only later to see the subsequent rise of Emperor Napoleon? Think Stalin and Mao.

BTW, the way that Bernie uses "democratic socialism" is understood by most as social democracy as these terms are defined technically in political theory. Bernie may be a democratic socialist at heart but he speaks from the podium as a social democrat. He is not backing the predominance of social ownership or control. That is non-starter in US politics, at least so far. I do think that there is a significant cohort in the US that favors social control of the commanding heights, which is democratic socialism, at least sort of.

continued

Tom Hickey said...

continuation

I think a more expansive definition of "socialism" not only creates a middle ground between the strict definitions of "capitalism" and "socialism," but it also encourages gradual change through consciousness-raising rather than violent revolution spearheaded by an avant-garde as a sort of Platonic guardian class. Plato's guardian class is a class of "enlightened" sages, however. This is a kind of presumption of Marx, in the sense that the "communist" avant-garde would be characterized by the altruism necessary for voluntary cooperative community based on personal freedom and common interests — a utopia in short.

I think that a progressive unfolding of humanity would unfold dialectically through stages, from individualism as the pursuit of self-interest to communism manifesting as altruism based on universal love. Democracy as government of the people, by the people, and for the people would develop as the political manifestation of this. The course might unfold along the lines of going from tribal society to feudalism to liberalism to social democracy to democratic socialism to communism. This would complete a cycle beginning with tribal collectivism to the development of personal freedom to the reconciling of the opposition of personal freedom in individualism based on self-interest to collective freedom of individuals in the states leading to a free society of truly free individuals.

I have reasons for thinking that something like this is not only possible but also eventual that I won't get into here. At the same time, in this view real freedom is never found exclusively in or through the material circumstances of material life. Real freedom is always available as the timeless "spiritual" reality. See, for example, the works of Stoics, Emperor Marcus Aurelius and slave Epictetus. It is mental, on one hand, and also supramental .

Hegel had this in mind in his dialectical philosophy of the Absolute becoming aware of itself through history. Marx rejected that and posited a materialist metaphysical basis and account in terms of materialism. In my view Hegel's mistake lay in rejecting perennial wisdom as being romantic in the sense of feeling-based, preferring rationalism instead.

In my view, perennial wisdom provides the big picture, with Hegel and Marx providing stages in the dialectic of experience that PW sets forth as the evolution of consciousness. This view has been the view of the East for millennia and previous in the West also until it was overshadowed by scientific naturalism. It is now gaining ground in the West again.

Here is Tulsi Gabbard.on the message of the Bhagavad Gita. Some think this will doom her campaign, if not end her political career in the US. Maybe so. But it is now part of the historical dialectic.

end

Magpie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Magpie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Magpie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Magpie said...

@Hickey

I happen to the think that the Wikipedia definition of socialism reflects pretty well what I observe to be the current range of meaning.

Well, I happen to think that the only evidence we have of your scholarship is your word.

And I happen to believe that the "information" Wikipedia has on Marxism and post Keynesianism has been maliciously tampered by internet post Keynesians, in part for self promotion, in part to promote their beliefs, in part to discredit the beliefs they oppose.

But I don't simply believe. There's evidence of that. Rosser, for one.

But is liquidation of the bourgeoisie wise, just, necessary or even sufficient to effect a transition and prevent a resurgence?

I repeat the challenge I've issued here and you've been studiously avoiding to acknowledge: explain to the bourgeoisie why you guys are better managers of the economy than them. Convince them of stepping down and letting you guys run the show on their behalf.

You can make everyone better off, because:

(1) You'll raise wages AND make employers more profitable.

(2) You'll increase work-related and environmental protections AND make firms more profitable.

(3) You'll reduce economic inequality WITHOUT making the rich less rich.

(4) You'll limit carbon emissions WITHOUT reducing anybody's consumption. Growth will go on forever under your stewardship.

With their consent you can prove within reasonable doubt that you guys fulfill just (whatever "justice" means), necessary and sufficient conditions.

BTW, the way that Bernie uses "democratic socialism" is understood by most as social democracy as these terms are defined technically in political theory.

And, btw, the way Bernie uses "democratic socialism" is not socialism for all the reasons I've given here and elsewhere, nor is it democratic. Is not democratic because he isn't in the business of changing "democracy" as it is practiced in the US today and that you guys here have endlessly argued isn't democratic.

So, don't give me Bernie. Your Keynesian ability of changing colours would be amusing in other contexts: Bernie disappoints (when you speak candidly), Bernie is the man (when you need his name to argue).

And, don't give me "Bhagavad Gita" anymore than the Bible.

Magpie said...

With all due respect to Yves Smith, she has no idea what's she is writing about.

I will not say much about the the "old-fashioned idea of direct control of physical assets" with which she opens. Suffice it to say that Rosser's argument for ownership of the means of production as defining criteria for socialism is only re-inforced by Smith's argument against it: capitalists now only need to own the shares of the firm to earn profits. They don't even need to breath or have a beating heart. That is the very definition of unearned income.

Instead, I will pay more attention to this:

Despite the fetishization of shareholder rights, in a corporation, equity is a residual claim. All other legal and financial commitments come first: paying your taxes, your debts, your leases, your licensing fees, your workers, your legal judgments, etc. The right to the cash flows can be further encumbered or restricted by regulation. Banks in the 1950s and 1960 were extensively regulated, including on product types and pricing, to the degree that bank profits (unless you made reckless loans or embezzled) were assured but constrained. Utilities in the bad old days had explicit profit limits.

After reading that, one is left to conclude that in non-incorporated firms, equity is not a residual claim of assets less liabilities. Nor was equity a residual claim of assets less liabilities in Marx's time. In the olden days, if one believes Smith, one would go bankrupt without paying one's creditors.

God, what makes probably well-meaning people write such ... (I don't want to be rude. So, you fill in the word).

Tom Hickey said...

@ Clint Ballinger

This happened some time ago so I am going on memory. The MMT economists are not on record about economic rent, which I found perplexing since Michael Hudson was at UMKC when Randy and Stephanie were there. That's not too surprising, however, since economists in general avoid economic rent even through they are all acquainted with it. Seems to be a hot potato that few are willing to pick up.

IRRC, I asked Warren about this in the comments at his place. The thread was about tax policy and economic rent. I think it was about Michael Hudson's analysis of rent and his proposal to tax it away.

Again, IIRC, Warren said he preferred to preempt it instead and that his proposals were aimed in part at doing that. So preempt first and then tax, since it is simpler to stop a behavior instead of allowing it then clawing back.

I never copied things out of the comments since I didn't think of it at the time. Lot interesting stuff I wish I had kept a record of.

AXEC / E.K-H said...

Tom Hickey, Clint Ballinger

Profit and rent is, in the final analysis, the same thing. Ricardo messed things up and in 200+ years, economists still have not realized it.#1, #2, #3

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#1 When Ricardo Saw Profit, He Called It Rent: On the Vice of Parochial Realism
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1932119

#2 Ricardo, too, got profit theory wrong. Sad!
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/02/ricardo-too-got-profit-theory-wrong-sad.html

#3 Ricardo and the invention of class war
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/02/ricardo-and-invention-of-class-war.html

AXEC / E.K-H said...

Cross-posting

Who is really a scientist?
Comment on Barkley Rosser on ‘Who Is Really A Socialist?’

Reply to Barkley Rosser, Calgacus

For monetary economies like the USA, USEu, Russia, China, the macroeconomic Profit Law reads Q=Yd+(X−M)+(G−T)+(I−S) and it holds independently of whether these countries describe themselves as capitalistic/socialistic/mixed and independently of how the commanding heights of the economy are staffed.

The fact of the matter is that in most countries the deficit-spending of the government has become the major source of macroeconomic profit. This means that so-called free market economies like the USA are on full life-support of the State.

The all-decisive political decision in all monetary economies is between breakdown now or growing public/private debt with breakdown later and NOT between private or public ownership.

The composition of the government’s budget is of secondary importance. The economic minimum condition for the continuation of the political status quo is that the deficit is sufficient to produce an overall profit Q given the other sectoral balances. This is the implicit rationale of full employment policy since Keynes.#1, #2 Implicit because it is obvious that politicians/economists do not really understand how the monetary economy works. In the old days, deficit spending has been justified by the urgency of defense against hostile neighbors/Communism/Terrorism now it is justified by the urgency of the avoidance of human extinction.

For the survival of the so-called free market economy, the allocation of the government’s budget between military or environmental/social spending is a matter of indifference. Politically, though, a Green New Deal sells better than a Space Force or tax reductions for the rich. Thus, the allocation problem boils down to a marketing pitch between the “good” environmental/social guys and the “bad” military/Oligarchy guys.

Independently of the allocation of the government’s budget, it is WeThePeople who is going to pay for it in real terms through either open or stealth taxation. Stealth taxation via the price mechanism is the Invisible-Hand outcome of deficit-spending/money-creation.

No matter in what garb deficit-spending/money-creation appears it is NEVER for the benefit of WeThePeople as a whole but ― because of the Profit Law Public Deficit = Private Profit ― a free lunch for the Oligarchy. The macroeconomic Laws apply to all monetary economies no matter what stupid/corrupt economists blather about Capitalism/Socialism.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#1 Keynes, Lerner, MMT, Trump and exploding profit
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/12/keynes-lerner-mmt-trump-and-exploding.html

#2 MMTers make Capitalism work
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/07/mmters-make-capitalism-work.html