Any good quotes from speeches, books, articles, etc
Yeah, this is not definitely attributed to Keynes, and earlier verions of it by other people paint this in a slightly different way as a positive point, that even nasty people work for the benefit of all. Many versions have been attributed to Keynes, both as a positive and a negative for capitalism.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/02/23/capitalism-motives/?amp=1
Competition is key. If they work together, it's to the detriment of all.
The problem of capitalism is that managing the competition becomes too complicated. Additionally, competition leads to price distortions. That can also become problematic.
The beauty of capitalism is that it rewards cooperation which makes it ugly because the lack thereof shows our deepest rifts.
This word salad may look good but tastes absolutely bland.
It don't even look good. Competition by its very nature leds to concentration and eventually to monopoly/cartel.
Yes, that's why it becomes complicated. Monopolies can be taxed to create space for competition but who prevents the authorities from being corrupted?
So better create something without competition. But humanity hasn't settled on a system. Meanwhile, competition has to be managed.
humanity hasn’t settled on a system
If only someone would invent some kind of alternative to capitalism… maybe some German dude named Karl?
Hasn't Marx only provided the analysis? The Sovjet Union would have survived if everything is settled.
I don't know of many nations that would survive the unrelenting assault of a burgeoning superpower for 8 decades.
I like to think that the SU collapsed from a grain deficit. That's primarily an internal problem.
But that's a side-argument. Where can I find the blueprint for a working non-competitive organization?
We MLs look to USSR, China, and the many smaller socialist countries such as Vietnam, Cuba etc. as examples of a preferable system.
The moment socialism is achieved in a country, all its standards of living skyrocket, by every metric. They often achieve rapid development, a boom of technological research, and a vast reduction in power of the personalities Keynes is referring to.
As Farvana above hints, the only reason this system hasn't rapidly become the standard worldwide is because of the powerful capitalist class greedily and violently protecting its power. Essentially almost every major conflict in the last century has ultimately been about the capitalist class, based in Western host nations, fighting to destroy socialism, the only thing that truly threatens their power.
Socialism is foundationally built on human cooperation. While there are many heart-warming examples of the peoples of these countries working fiercly together, both among themselves and with other countries oppressed by the West, they were born into a hostile world controlled by capitalism and have often had to emulate their enemies just to survive. China in the late 20th century used competition, among other capitalist mechanisms, in order to develop, integrate themselves into the world economy, and to appear obedient to the West so they could quietly build up enough power to act truly independently.
The reason the USSR collapsed is complicated but it really is just a matter of 8 decades of siege and the occasional foundational mistake all piling up and finally materializing in a capitalist coup of the socialist government that was wildly unpopular; it was THEN that lifestyle metrics sharply tanked. Socialism is the newest system in humanity, it has scarcely been around 100 years, it is experimental and the USSR was the first country of its kind. China carefully took notes and devised strategies to make sure they didn't suffer the same fate.
The rift part in my comment. I think it's not enough to blame the capitalist class. If the masses can be swayed by a few, whatever socialism is implemented can be toppled by a bad idea that happens to arise in somebody's mind.
This isn't complicated this is one of the most simple and most visible mechanism in capitalism. Even Keynes seen that, just his answer was unfeasible for a prolonged periods.
The mechanism is simple. But how do you prevent the ones who regulate it from being corrupted?
I have to admit that I don't know Keynes' answer. If you don't mind, could you give me some keywords for a search, please?
But how do you prevent the ones who regulate it from being corrupted?
By setting up a system that don't promote corruption nor require it, unlike capitalism which do.
Keynes answer was to make state regulate the above features of capitalism, but Keynes either from ignorance (hard to believe) or rather from utter idealism, ignored Marx and Smith analysis and warnings and put the regulation of capitalism in the hands of capitalist state. In effect, he tasked regulating those nastiest of men from OP quote to the very same men.
Recommended read: Lenin's "Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism"
I really have to read it. But I don't question that the state will be corrupted. My question is how that non-corruptive system can be created. That's the tricky part.
Yes, it indeed is very tricky. For that there isn't real universal answer except socialism (as system which don't encourage nor require corruption) plus constant effort. Basically all socialist leaders wrote at least something about that. One of most notable examples is Xi Jinping, whose entire career is based on sucessful anticorruption activity on many levels of government.
What is human nature? If there is no obvious corruption then there can be hidden corruption. Socialist people could easily find each other and live together in harmony, but they don't, which suggests that some coercion is needed.
With effort, capitalism can be maintained, too. Elect a party that taxes capital and maintain the balance.
Would Xi Jinping be elected if there wasn't the threat of invasion and the existential need to avoid corruption?
What is human nature?
https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/crash_course_socialism.md#history-and-human-nature
If there is no obvious corruption then there can be hidden corruption.
Especially if you're imprisoned in the preemptive inquisitorial mindset which leads you to dismiss any potential change because it might not be perfect, which is sadly the case in a lot of western leftists.
Socialist people could easily find each other and live together in harmony, but they don’t, which suggests that some coercion is needed.
We all live in class societies and you can't just leave society, especially nowadays. And while you can try to chage it, by the means of revolution, there will be reaction. Recommended reading: Engels "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State", Marx "The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850" and "The Civil War in France".
About coercion, what is needed first is the cessation of coercion and violence from capitalist states. So far, not happened anywhere, thus we need revolution.
With effort, capitalism can be maintained, too.
Not indefinitely. Capitalism require infinite growth but we only have finite planet. It is undoubtedly resilient system, as evidenced by its developing from ordinary capitalism into imperialism and then by several cycles inside the imperialism level, but eventually it will fall. Problem is, it will most likely kill all or most of us, destroy the planet and collapse entire civilisation. Thus we need to put a stop to it, the sooner the better.
Elect a party that taxes capital and maintain the balance.
As above, impossible. Again, Lenin's "Imperialism..." and Marx book 1 of "Capital". Last century is especially glaring example of complete failure of keynesian model, which wasn't even really fully implement anywhere.
Would Xi Jinping be elected if there wasn’t the threat of invasion and the existential need to avoid corruption?
Now that would be a magical world without any hardships. Sorry, marxism don't deal with that.
Thanks for the link.
So many topics to reply, I pick the following.
Capitalism doesn't need infinite growth. That's only needed if all interests are paid. Some creditors can fold. That's where capitalists work, they have to pick or make the winners.
I wouldn't give up on the majority maintaining a tax rate. Ignorance is paying off, so people don't care but that can change. The question is how?
Inversely, I don't believe that socialists are inherently less corrupt. My last paragraph was not about hardship but policy-altering threats. If socialism needs them then it's as dependent on competition as capitalism.
I can send you some reading material. I think everything will start making sense as you read, and everything will become coherent.
Economics: Wage labour and capital, Value price and profit
Society: Imperialism, State and revolution
And in general feel free to browse the library the books I sent come from as well as the entire wiki!
Thanks for the links. I have tried to find a contradiction to my points in the first one but haven't.
Marx writes before democracy. If you control the law, you want accumulation of capital because you can tax it. Let the capitalists optimize society and enjoy universal basic income.
Of course there is corruption. But that's not limited to capitalism although it can be more severe.
Capitalism doesn’t need infinite growth.
Wrong. Marx explains this and reality confirmes it all the time. What happens when the capital runs out of the roon for growth? It crashes in a crisis, simple as. Every decade or so, for the last 200 years. Crisis destroys some capital, leaving some room to grow in this place, but every time, countless human being suffer and the wealth gets even more concentrated. Also the profit margin is on average dropping.
That’s where capitalists work, they have to pick or make the winners.
And you say you don't see the concentration of wealth as being inherent to capitalism? Someone wins, someone have to lose.
I wouldn’t give up on the majority maintaining a tax rate.
"Majority" don't have power in capitalism. Capital has. For well known example, for how long majority of USA citizens wants public healthcare? Decades, and nothing happened. How long are people in most capitalist countries against austerity? Yet they are getting consecutive rounds of it, both in boom and in bust. Why are neoliberals in power almost everywhere in capitalist countries while being unpopular? Etc. etc.
Ignorance is paying off, so people don’t care but that can change. The question is how?
Yes, and we have ample historical proof people can take the power and use it in good way. Answer is socialism.
I don’t believe that socialists are inherently less corrupt.
They you believe wrong. Take out profit motive, that will took out most of it, by the definition.
My last paragraph was not about hardship but policy-altering threats. If socialism needs them then it’s as dependent on competition as capitalism.
What kind of competition do you even mean here?
Without profit motivation, you end up with the sovjet union not having enough grain.
I see the danger in accumulation of capital like there is danger in nuclear energy. It requires skills to manage it. The answer can involve socialism but I think it's not entirely political. Why has the population not prevented the fall of the sovjet union?
Marx argues like capitalists during the banking crisis. Let even the critical businesses go bust. The means of production remain. The state takes ownership and production continues. Shares can be sold later on. Accumulation of capital doesn't matter if you tax it.
The last paragraph. You mention Xi Jinping who cleared corruption. Is that something that can be expected in a world organized by socialism? Why would a corrupt socialist elite elect somebody like him as a leader without the threat of invasion?
Without profit motivation, you end up with the sovjet union not having enough grain.
Sure as fuck it didn't prevented all the hunger in capitalism.
https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/master/socialism_faq.md
Here is the faq for such nonsenses and much more.
I see the danger in accumulation of capital like there is danger in nuclear energy. It requires skills to manage it.
What? Seriously what one has to do with other? Go read some basic Marx, it's all there.
The answer can involve socialism but I think it’s not entirely political.
It's even called "political economy" Production mode is the base of politics and it's the base of entire society.
Why has the population not prevented the fall of the sovjet union?
Faq above
Marx argues like capitalists during the banking crisis. Let even the critical businesses go bust
No, but you would know if you read. Marx argues to get rid of the cycle entirely by abolishing capitalism.
The state takes ownership and production continues. Shares can be sold later on.
As above, nationalistion in capitalist state matters very little, it is usually used to save either critical sectors fucked up by capitalist indolence or to bail out the influental capitalist. More of them than not which was nationalised is later reprivatised.
Accumulation of capital doesn’t matter if you tax it.
Please read that Lenin book and stop tiring me with something i answered multiple times. Capitalist state cannot meningfully tax capitalists, fucking Amazon does not even pay any taxes or barely any and there is many such cases, most tax income comes from indirect taxes like VAT which are regressive by nature.
Is that something that can be expected in a world organized by socialism?
Not always but yeah, as you can see by him being elected president, socialism have incentives to do so, because in socialism corruption is a fault and crime, while in capitalism its unavoidable feature (just look at lobbying).
Why would a corrupt socialist elite elect somebody like him as a leader without the threat of invasion?
You already assumed without any base the Chinese national assemby or maybe entire China is entirely corrupted. Corruption is not a binary state. Also excuse me but whose invasion? 80% wars after 1945 was caused or meddled in by USA, the country which has literally institutionalized corruption and which interventions usually support corrupt cliques and cause corruption to go rampant.
in a world organized by socialism? Why would a corrupt socialist elite elect somebody like him as a leader without the threat of invasion?
You already assumed without any base the Chinese national assemby o
No, the context is a world organized by socialism, so any socialist country.
You wrote that socialism will make sure that the corrections will happen.
I am not convinced. I don't think that capitalism is the sole reason that the masses are immature. If we had socialism, the masses would be equally complacit.
What would socialism do that would make the difference?
Related, in socialism, who would force people to work if they vote to be able to watch Tiktok all day?
Also excuse me but whose invasion?
That's about China. As you assume, my point is that the threat of an US intervention drives the need to limit corruption.
Marx argues like capitalists during the banking crisis. Let even the critical businesses go bust
No, but you would know if you read. Marx argues to get rid of the cycle entirely by abolishing capitalism.
Yes, Marx argues against the cycle. I don't buy that argument. There is no need to prevent it.
About the famines. My point is that the sovjet union started to rely on grain imports for oil money. When you are in a cold war, how can that happen? I haven't seen that question in the faq.
This should be the core problem. From Lenin's book:
calling universal suffrage as well an instrument of bourgeois rule. Universal suffrage, is
“the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It cannot and never will be anything more in the present-day state.”
So, make them mature first. Why bother with a revolution?
Of course there are arguments for the revolution but it was luck that it was possible then. Today, there is no way that the masses get the means of production to stage a revolution.
About the book:
On which page does he explain that a socialist state is the tool to proceed? And why do ML not like anarchists and call them bourgeois when L wants to end statehood?
It's very taxing to read because it sounds right but has subtle contradictions. E. g. calling it dictatorship of proletariat does either mean democracy or it is a paradox.
The architect never believed in the fundamental design. That’s sobering.
While still flawed and ultimately pale in comparison to socialism, his economic vision was still light years better then the utter dystopian hell we have entered.