*FYI: a clearcut forest never actually just "regrows".*

It does when it was replanted on what used to be farmland.
But if it floats your boat, on old growth forest you are
free to practise sustainable logging, ie just take a few
trees now and then. All possible under our system.

*Tell that one to all the hardworking people who never seem to be able to make ends meet under capitalism.*

You mean those who
max out their credit cards, no matter how much they earn? You
mean those who blow it on the pokies? They are grown up, they
are free to make decisions about their lives, like budget and
say no. With freedoms come responsiblities.

*It's about *getting rid of government*. *

Yet that is never how it pans out. Its always the few at the top,
trying to dictate to the masses.

*That's not what I'm reading, mate.*

Well Grok, you won't find it in the Socialist Left Weekly. Yet the
figures are freely available, prove me wrong, go on.

Dear Gilbert Holmes,
the central premise of Marxism is that capitalism (apart from being dehumanising and unconscionable) is untenable because of inevitably shrinking profit margins, which is why the system demands and "must have" non-stop growth; that is, to transfuse a fiscal entropy that "must" entail within a closed system. Ours is a closed system. This aspect of Marx's thought is CDF (though nobody else figured it out) and the main reason for my objection to micro-economic reform, i.e. it is based on the merest logic
I find Marx's theory of alienation compelling, but I'm willing to admit that it borders on metaphysics since we can't know to what extent we are not "fully human" under capitalism. I would therefore be willing, on that basis, to talk about reforming the actually existing economy we have, so that it afforded everyone an optimum amount of quality time: i.e. social reform. I assure you I do not relish the prospect of bloody revolution and/or economic melt-down. My objection then to the reforms you advocate (as worthy as they may be in themselves) is that as long as it is driven by the profit motive, with no cap on wealth, it is like the proverbial rearranging of deckchairs on the Titanic, which is why I called them "pure fantasy".
Even if such a cap on wealth, and protectionism, was put in place, there would still be our obligation to the rest of humanity, as laid down according to the dual (symbiotic) hypocrisies of Humanist and Christian doctrine, which is why I asked what your plans for the third world were.

"Despite the tinkerings and reprieves that may prove feasible in the short or middle run, capitalism is ultimately destined for extinction. 'The true barrier to capitalist production,' as Marx neatly put it, 'is capital itself.'" (Carl Freedman)

I am exasperated with hammering this point on several threads. Social welfare has only ever been a device for keeping the means of production productive. Like all religious adherents, you believe what you want to believe, despite all contradictory evidence.

That does seem like an interesting post Squeers, though I do have a little trouble understanding it.

I do think that one of the problems with capitalism is that it involves an addiction to economic growth, and that the answer to that is to have a significant chunk of economic activity to be cooperative, because in a time of reduced economic output, this will provide both continued employment as well as the supply of goods services. We might me working and getting less but the whole system doesn't need to be bottoming out because it is getting smaller.

"to transfuse a fiscal entropy that "must" entail within a closed system" could you explain that a little more?! I also don't know what CDF means.

"My objection then to the reforms you advocate (as worthy as they may be in themselves) is that as long as it is driven by the profit motive, with no cap on wealth, it is like the proverbial rearranging of deckchairs on the Titanic"

I actually believe that the predominance of the profit motive within our current economic system is a significant problem. A much more active cooperative aspect of the economy, that produces and distributes goods and services at cost, is something that I advocate. This will not only reduce our addiction to economic growth, but will also provide a price signal (via the labour theory of value) against which competitively produced and sold items can be measured. (Adjusting currency value to this price benchmark would also enable us to have zero inflation.)

cont..

I am also an advocate of a wealth tax. I am an advocate of private investement, especially by small investors in local businesses (in line with the proposed locality tax). With investment, however, those with more wealth will tend to become wealthier still, increasing the gap between the rich and the poor. Beyond certain limits therefore, I suggest that an increasing tax on assets be applied that would effectively mean that massive personal wealth is impossible.

I do support the idea that people be rewarded for effort, risk and innovation, but beyond enabling a pretty good house, a good chunk of spending money and a pretty successful business focussed on providing for the needs/wants of the local bio-region, I do not support mechanisms that enable the massive growth of private wealth.

My plans for the third world revolve around changing the direction of development aid to focus on encouraging local self-reliance and community interdependence as compared to ecouraging the development of industries that sell things in order to gain money which can then be used to buy things. The latter is moving us away from ecological sustainability, reduces democracy, will tend to encourage the concentration of wealth in private hands, etc.

Dear Gilbert Holmes,
I'm mortified my post wasn't clear, I'm always at pains to be crystally so.
It is simply the case that in order to maintain profit margins, new markets have to be created. All stable market's are subject to entropy, that is diminishing returns on production because of competition and falling prices as well as domestic satiety. There must therefore be continuous innovation and market expansion, i.e. growth. That is why we now have global capitalism (along with concomitant species decimation, habitat destruction and, increasingly, resource scarcity. The closed system I refer to then is our planet and its potential markets. According to one Marxist theorist the economic crisis has been forestalled partly thanks to what he calls a "spatial dialectic" i.e. an era of phantasmal innovation and commodities (computer software for instance, and the concomitant hardware): the "communication revolution".

Much of what you say I heartily agree with, such as wealth tax and a wealth cap. Indeed for me there should also be complete equality in terms of education, health care and other services. But then the system would cease to be capitalism and the whole dynamic behind wealth creation would be disincentivised (ghastly American neologism). We'd have to find something else to be motivated by, and we'd have to live within our means rather than on borrowed time. In fact, we would then be some kind of communism!
The point is that what you are recommending is incompatible with capitalism, indeed antithetical; the present system cannot be reformed, it is what it is. Welfare (a delusion born of the boom) is just another drain on profits and ultimately unsustainable.
The whole reason Marx fomented revolution is because he saw all this and knew that those who owned the means of production wouldn't give it up without a fight. Freedom (and now survival) has to be fought for. But ideology is a formidable opponent!
If you disagree may I ask, how would you suggest we get the government to implement the reforms you recommend?

Squeers, congratulations, that's the first time a socialist in this thread has actually come up with a coherent economic argument, rather than merely assuming that capitalism is exploitative, socialism is the solution, and name-calling.

>... there should also be complete equality in terms of education, health care and other services.

What are the other services?
Why should there be any area in which inequality is permitted?
Why don’t the same considerations apply to these permitted areas, as apply to education, health care etc.?
How are you going to stop the permitted inequality from permanently affecting the areas in which there should be equality?
Why not complete equality in terms of everything?

➢ But then the system would cease to be capitalism and the whole dynamic behind wealth creation would be disincentivised (ghastly American neologism). We'd have to find something else to be motivated by... In fact, we would then be some kind of communism!

How is that different from what I’ve been saying all along?

Are you accusing capitalism of impoverishing the masses or raising their living standard unsustainably high? Which one is it?

The problems you are pointing out are the problems that socialist economists were discussing in the 1910s as impediments to the implementation of socialism. I maintain that they haven't been solved because they can't be solved in theory, let alone in practice. And here you are admitting that the state of socialist economic theory is no more advanced than it was before the Bolshevik Revolution.

What do you say to the argument that economic calculation is not possible under public ownership of the means of production?

Let's suppose you were able to re-shape society as you wish and there was universal agreement. Now let's suppose that we socialise the means of production as much as you would want them socialised.

Do you genuinely think that that would be viable in practice? In your opinion would mass starvation result? Or not? Seriously.