Faith in free-market economics fading, shows new research

[Senor Hoint]

Historically, yes, but you can't judge planned economies based on history alone. What about a de-centralized command economy done from the bottom up?

A decentralized command economy is a contradiction in terms.

Governments do not uniformly reduce efficiency. Universal education increases efficiency, as do various other long term investments. Many regulations do more good than bad. Basic law and order is a prerequisite of a free market. And, redistributing wealth increases consumer demand by taking from the wealthy, who are good investors but poor consumers, and giving to the poor and middle class, who are poor investors but good consumers.

Precisely. You cannot have a free market without government regulation, just as you cannot have a fair game without a referee. When I say "free market" I do not mean a market free of regulation--quite the opposite, in fact.

[Dan74]

A decentralized command economy is a contradiction in terms.

No it's not. Economic decisions would be made by the working class, in a democratic fashion.

[SoylentGreen]

Markets are more efficient than command economies. I think that's been fairly well-demonstrated by the course of history.

You have an example of market system that was not regulated by government ?

A basic necessity of a free market is the right to private ownership. A concept that grew from the various revolutions of europe. Revolutions that questioned those who had divided that right between the royalty and church

[minorwork]

No it's not. Economic decisions would be made by the working class, in a democratic fashion.

Working class? NOT the scholars? NOT the educated class? Heresy.

[Senor Hoint]

You have an example of market system that was not regulated by government ?

Nor do I need one. I have many examples of regulated market economies succeeding and of command economies failing. Had you read more closely, you would have seen that I was arguing for regulation of market economies. In fact I specifically said that what most people would call a "free market," I think is anything but.

A basic necessity of a free market is the right to private ownership. A concept that grew from the various revolutions of europe. Revolutions that questioned those who had divided that right between the royalty and church

No it's not. Economic decisions would be made by the working class, in a democratic fashion.

This sounds nice, but what would it mean in terms of policy? And how do you define "the working class" in opposition to other classes?

[Dodds]

You have an example of market system that was not regulated by government ?

A basic necessity of a free market is the right to private ownership. A concept that grew from the various revolutions of europe. Revolutions that questioned those who had divided that right between the royalty and church

Chile in the 70s.

[Dan74]

This sounds nice, but what would it mean in terms of policy?

What do you mean?

And how do you define "the working class" in opposition to other classes?

Working class - proletariat
Ruling class - bourgeoisie

[Senor Hoint]

Working class - proletariat
Ruling class - bourgeoisie

So, could you elaborate on those terms? What do they actually mean in terms of a concrete policy discussion?

What do you mean?

I mean how, exactly, would the "working class" "make economic decisions" democratically?

[Dan74]

So, could you elaborate on those terms? What do they actually mean in terms of a concrete policy discussion?

The bourgeoisie is the class that owns the means of production as capital. The proletariat is essentially the class that depends on wages earned through labor. They do not live off of capital.

"In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed – a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce."

-Karl Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party

I mean how, exactly, would the "working class" "make economic decisions" democratically?

I think this will answer your question:

"Socialist democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism. It begins at the very moment of the seizure of power by the socialist party. It is the same thing as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class -- that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people."

-Rosa Luxemburg, The Russian Revolution: Democracy or Dictatorship?

Lenin also wrote on this, but I won't post that as it doesn't represent my opinion. He advocated the use of soviets (worker councils) as well as the vanguard party (state). This is what happened during Stalin's time. I think that's a good enough reason to discard it.

[Senor Hoint]

The bourgeoisie is the class that owns the means of production as capital. The proletariat is essentially the class that depends on wages earned through labor. They do not live off of capital.

"In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed – a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce."

The problem is there are many people who have financial resources and also work. Is it only people who don't work at all and instead solely live off their investment income in the bourgeoisie?

"Socialist democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism. It begins at the very moment of the seizure of power by the socialist party. It is the same thing as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class -- that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people."

It sounds here like Rosa is arguing for the same thing I'm arguing for. What she calls "dictatorship of the proletariat" I'd call "democracy at work." Democracy should not be a forum for the wealthy few to shit on the poor masses. Democracy should be the forum whereby the poor masses get their own back.

[Dan74]

The problem is there are many people who have financial resources and also work. Is it only people who don't work at all and instead solely live off their investment income in the bourgeoisie?

No. You're missing a key point. The bourgeois gets a good portion of his or her money from the labor of the proletarian. It would really benefit you to read up on this yourself. I could sit here for an hour typing out an explanation. Both Wealth of Nations and Das Kapital discuss this subject at great length. Here's a "Sparksnotes" version of Das Kaptial:Wage Labour and Capital

It sounds here like Rosa is arguing for the same thing I'm arguing for. What she calls "dictatorship of the proletariat" I'd call "democracy at work." Democracy should not be a forum for the wealthy few to shit on the poor masses. Democracy should be the forum whereby the poor masses get their own back.

Fair enough. Just keep in mind that the "wealth few" don't have any place in this proletarian dictatorship, just as the proletariat has no place in a bourgeois dictatorship (think pre-labor rights USA).

[Senor Hoint]

Fair enough. Just keep in mind that the "wealth few" don't have any place in this proletarian dictatorship, just as the proletariat has no place in a bourgeois dictatorship (think pre-labor rights USA).

So what does that mean? That you kill them all? The wealthy should have as much power as anyone else, not more, not less.

No. You're missing a key point. The bourgeois gets a good portion of his or her money from the labor of the proletarian. It would really benefit you to read up on this yourself. I could sit here for an hour typing out an explanation. Both Wealth of Nations and Das Kapital discuss this subject at great length.

Oh, I've read up on it. I know what Marx says. I wanted to know what you are saying. Of course, it seems that what you're saying is "what Marx said."