Posts by fulltimestudent

94

Karl Marx Genius Of The Modern World

by Brokeback Watchtower in

he was all for getting rid of religions and their delusions for the betterment of mankind.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mydmc1wio8.

fulltimestudent

MeanMrMustard:

ay be noted in this discussion that government ownership was common in the past.

Why is that important to note?

Right across Asia there is evidence that governments initiated production facilities. For the reason already stated, that there was insufficient private capital available for the project. Not surprising when you consider that most of the population (say 80% to 90%) was engaged in agriculture. Only the state had the resources to inject capital into some enterprise.

Not having the needed capital to undertake a venture implies something about undertaking that venture. When the government bureaucrats make that decision, how do they really know that more agriculture wouldn’t be the best thing right now? Why not steal money from people and create carrot juicers instead?

Why? Simply to make the point that historically, most of the monuments built in the past were built by governments

That would monuments like the vanity tombs we call the Pyramids in Egypt. Similar monuments in South America, Defensive projects like China's Great Wall, And Sasanian Irans, Great wall of Gorgan, or Religious buildings such as the Jerusalem Temple, Egyptian Temples or Roman Temples (converted for christian use) Personally, aside from what they tell us of the past, I do not place a high value on any of these human projects, but they would not have been built without the use of capital accumulated by the state. (Cant say whether they were built efficiently etc.) Maybe we can relegate modern 'marvels' built by private capital like a certain Tower who's descriptive name commences with T (grin) or any other skyscraper built as investments to a similar category.

So now our views of human life start to converge, as you state:

What is so important about venture XYZ that you have to steal capital from everyone (taxes), pool it, and start the venture?

94

Karl Marx Genius Of The Modern World

by Brokeback Watchtower in

he was all for getting rid of religions and their delusions for the betterment of mankind.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mydmc1wio8.

fulltimestudent

MeanMrMustard: The most important factor is not on your list: The members of the town/corporation can make decisions on what to produce because they have prices – prices that come from everywhere else around them. They have prices for their inputs and a good idea of what they can get for their outputs at home and abroad. They are swimming in a sea of market information.

OK, add market intelligence, to the list of four in my post that you quoted. Market intelligence is important in an open market situation, and certainly competition is important in any economy, which is likely one of the reasons the CPC switched from Mao's concept of socialism to Deng's.

Of course, when a monopoly situation exists, either in a system of private enterprise or a so-called socialist system, price doesn't have the same importance. It would only be important in establishing how many you be able to sell (i.e. the purchasing power of the consumer is a factor to be considered)

MMM-This town is just like a large company, giving housing away for their investors as a perk.

Cool, which is a point I made. In a large corporation the the identity of the 'shareholders' or owners is not nearly as important as the efficiency of the corporation. In Australia, when the Airline Qantas was government owned, it was a good airline and (as I remember it) usually made a profit for the government (or all Australian shareholders).

The Aust. government got coldfeet over Qantas when it become clear that new aircraft were going to be required (or, at least that was the story), but some think that there was an ideological motive behind the privatisation.

OTOH as Cofty tells his experience in the UK, the UK telecom was a candidate for the feather-bedding award of the century. An example of bad management. And in Australia, the current telecom organisation called Telstra* had similar experiences. The shareholding was sold off in a number of tranches (I think govt. shareholding is down to 17%) But I'm not sure that any shareholder has had real value for their investment.

In Australia we have a new government owned telecommunications company. NBN Holdings was established to build a nation wide fibre-optics network.' Good or bad? Time will tell.

Another example is Singapore's government owned Temasek Holdings, best described as a sovereign wealth fund owned by the S. government's, Department of Finance, to invest in a wide range of companies. Since 2011, the government has paid a dividend to some 80% of citizens.

Can't see much difference between a privately run or a government run investment fund. Of course, if you're opinions are motivated by an ideological bias toward private enterprise or a government enterprise you will find a difference.

*Telstra's origins date back to 1901, and Australian Federation, when the Postmaster-General's Department (PMG) was established by the Commonwealth Government to manage all domestic telephone, telegraph and postal services 1991-1995

10

More than 75% of the human genome may be 'junk' DNA.

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

making little or no difference to our daily lives, comes the claim that most of our human genome is not functional.. dan graur an (evolutionary) biologist at the university of houston and other academics made the claim in a paper published in an online journal, genome biology and evolution.. the group's calculations suggest that not more than 25% of the human genome is functional - the rest is seen as 'junk' dna,.

see science dailys coverage of the report at: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170714140234.htm .

coverage of similar research at the uk's oxford university (reported in the guardian aust.

fulltimestudent

Making little or no difference to our daily lives, comes the claim that most of our human genome is not functional.

Dan Graur an (evolutionary) biologist at the University of Houston and other academics made the claim in a paper published in an online journal, Genome Biology and Evolution.

The group's calculations suggest that not more than 25% of the human genome is functional - the rest is seen as 'junk' DNA,

See Science Dailys coverage of the report at: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170714140234.htm

Coverage of similar research at the UK's Oxford University (reported in The Guardian Aust. web edition)

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jul/24/10-percent-human-dna-functional-genome-biological-baggage

added comments by Gerton Lunter, a member of that research team:

Who (it is reported), "said that based on the comparisons, 8.2% of human DNA was "functional", meaning that it played an important enough role to be conserved by evolution. ...

Researchers have known for some time that only 1% of human DNA is held in genes that are used to make crucial proteins to keep cells – and bodies – alive and healthy. The latest study, reported in the journal Plos Genetics, suggests that a further 7% of human DNA is equally vital, regulating where, when, and how genes are expressed.

But if much of our DNA is so worthless, why do we still carry it around? ... " Lunter said. "We haven't been designed. We've evolved and that's a messy process. This other DNA really is just filler. It's not garbage. It might come in useful one day. But it's not a burden."

Some of our DNA is left over from ancient viruses that inserted their genetic material into our DNA – or our ancestors DNA – and got mutated to pieces over millennia of evolution. Some still have the ability to jump around in our genomes, adding to the filler as they do so, but are so crippled they cannot break out."

NB: The Guardian report explains what these scientists mean by "functional."

94

Karl Marx Genius Of The Modern World

by Brokeback Watchtower in

he was all for getting rid of religions and their delusions for the betterment of mankind.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mydmc1wio8.

fulltimestudent

MeanMrMustard: It is not what you think. This village is basically a corporation using labor from the surrounding towns, paying them a wage, and producing products (like steel) to sell and realizing the profits because they can calculate their inputs and outputs due to prices. The workers coming in from surrounding towns are glad to work for these capitalists because it improves their standard of living. Nothing wrong with that...

Smile, I'm happy you picked up on that point (I wondered if anyone would notice that development).

But it does not take away from the fact that at the start of this village's development all the labour was internal to the village. The use of non-village workers only came with success. But yes, you're basically correct in saying that the village became a corporation.

And whether, a business enterprise is owned by one individual, or by a company or by the government is not particularly important. What's important is that has the following:

1. Access to adequate capital.

2. Skilled management.

3. Skilled technicians.

4. Good accounting practise.

Japan is noted for its fast industrialisation in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. And, even though there was at times insufficient private capital to start a factory making a certain product, the government was prepared to step in and start a business making the product and later sell the business.

It may be noted in this discussion that government ownership was common in the past. Right across Asia there is evidence that governments initiated production facilities. For the reason already stated, that there was insufficient private capital available for the project. Not surprising when you consider that most of the population (say 80% to 90%) was engaged in agriculture. Only the state had the resources to inject capital into some enterprise.

Lack of capital is the limiting factor in many economic projects. When the CPC came to power in China, they inherited, not only a war ravaged economy, the warlord era, the Japanese war from 1937 and the civil war - 1945 to 1949.\, but also a shortage of capital. (The defeated GMD (or KMT) took China's gold reserves with them - one reason why Taiwan developed so fast. That was the basis of many of the problems they experienced on the road to where they now are).

94

Karl Marx Genius Of The Modern World

by Brokeback Watchtower in

he was all for getting rid of religions and their delusions for the betterment of mankind.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mydmc1wio8.

fulltimestudent

waton: A commie factory was ordered to produce x number of footwear ( as calculated by Central Committee for need), promptly produced the most convenient to make, and at Kaganovitch pace and quality. not wanted, left the needy in need.

Just a nit-picking correction. The calculation of the number of shoes to produce would not be made by the Central Committee. This calculation would have been made by the Central Planning Bureau. Likely you have over-simplified the planning process in order to make your point. It's a mistake to do that in order to attempt to make an ideological point

Otherwise, I have no criticism of your criticism of the potential problems involved with Central Planning or with the motivation.

But I would like to note that often people who just work for some business enterprise, are often very unmotivated. That's true whether they work for the government or a private company-(I could write a lot of words about that facet of human life, I'd likely start with Aristotle's concept that there existed a "natural" slave class of humans, that is, they were born to be slaves, or today, as welfare dependents).

Back in the day, I managed a small factory, making custom products. Based on the material cost and the processes required we'd quote a price for the product, which meant we had to carefully watch production times to be sure of our gross profit. It was hard to keep the guys motivated. Sometimes, I'd chide them and tell them the world was changing and there were hungry people out there who wanted their job. That usually brought gales of laughter, but it was true, and lots of those jobs no longer exist in OZ.

I am unsure if problems with Central Planning (if it was in universal use from 1949 until Den Xiao-Pings time) led the Chinese government to make the change to a market led economy? In any case, Deng's decision to harness the energy of ordinary people to make a quid unleashed the tremendous energy now obvious in the Chinese economy

You may also be interested in the fact that after the Korean war ended in 1953, the DPRK (with Russian assistance) and despite the fact that nearly every structure had been damaged by US bombing, re-built far faster than the ROK. (Now the ROK is a long way ahead of the DPRK)

That was likely because decisions could be made faster. But the whole process came unstuck with the death of Kim Il-sung. Kim Il-sung had acted like the CEO of a vast corporation and it is said that he spent most of his day on the telephone sorting out problems.

When he died and Kim Jong-il became President (in 1994), he refused to do that, and left the nation's factories and companies to their own devices. Problems and stuff-ups soon brought all kinds or problems and this one thing likely led to the problems of the late 1990s.

Interestingly again (I think, for you guys) Out of the famine conditions of the late 1990s, came the first glimmerings of a market economy in NK. People were desperate, and whatever they could scrounge to sell they did, little shanty markets started to spring up all over NK (sometimes selling goods obtained from relatives in China, where across a small river - in places - over two million ethnic Koreans live (the are Chinese citizens) and sometimes from Zainichi Koreans living in Japan, who, for whatever reason gave some loyalty to the DPRK (its complicated). This process, from a slow start, has accelerated in recent years and is now an important part of the north Korean economy, The strange thing is, that its mainly an area where women have taken a lead and that's also changing NK social mores, because the women make more money than their husbands. (NK claims to have full employment, so all the males have a job, even if they have no work to do, and even if their salary is worth very little. But the rules are they must turn up at their office/factory every day, anyway)

94

Karl Marx Genius Of The Modern World

by Brokeback Watchtower in

he was all for getting rid of religions and their delusions for the betterment of mankind.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mydmc1wio8.

fulltimestudent

Do any successful examples of socialist communities still exist in China? Here's a YT video of Huaxi (pronounced wahshe) village in China's Jiangsu Province, which claims to be China's richest village. There's a number of reports/videos on Huaxi (some hypercritical). I selected these because they were apparently made by the Singapore Straits Times (with shares held by government approved ownership) and Singapore with a very successful economy is a mix of socialism and capitalism, and many think of Singapore as the model for China today.

Anyway, see what you think of a successful 'socialist' village?

Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHI8KzdpR8Q

Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETNXB499y6M

94

Karl Marx Genius Of The Modern World

by Brokeback Watchtower in

he was all for getting rid of religions and their delusions for the betterment of mankind.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mydmc1wio8.

fulltimestudent

The question has also been raised, "Are there any successful examples of a Marxist country? Nope, I don't know of any countries either? But we can find communities that can be described as an example of a successful "socialist" community.

For 400 years (appox. 200 BCE to 200 CE), the Essenes were a community in Judah. If you joined the community you were (according to Josephus) required to give your belongings (wealth) to the community and work for it (as assigned) in return for your daily needs. (it is argued, by some, that many Essenes were among the first followers of Jesus, and that is why at Pentecost, the Jews in the first Jesus community, 'had all things in common.'

Later as being 'Christian' became more clearly defined many chose to become part of of a monastic group, operating on similar principles to the Essenes. These groups were popular in Catholic areas for centuries.

Some scholarship argues that these monastic groups were modeled on Buddhist monastic communities, true or not true, Buddhist monasteries do operate in a similar way.

Do we see them as 'socialist"? I guess its a matter of defining 'socialist' first.

94

Karl Marx Genius Of The Modern World

by Brokeback Watchtower in

he was all for getting rid of religions and their delusions for the betterment of mankind.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mydmc1wio8.

fulltimestudent

Thnx Brokeback Watchtower, for posting the BBC Series discussing Marx's concepts. I somehow missed it, if it was ever re-broadcast on Aussie TV.

In the 8 years I've spent studying Asian/Chinese history, I've not really focussed much attention on 'the dismal science,' (the semi-humourous term Thomas Carlyle applied to economics). maybe that was a mistake, but I figured that understanding human history from an asiancentric viewpoint would about occupy my remaining years. But the point I want to make is that most of the arguing back and forth on this thread, misses the points Carlyle picked up on, and that is:

1. If economics is a 'science' in any way, then what we really need to do is to see how Marx would fit into the understanding of the way economic communities (economies) work. For me, it would be his insistence that all parties must have an adequate reward. If that does not happen, then the economic community has failed and there will be repercussions.

2.If economics is a 'science' in any way, then we should view the discussion, not just as whether any particular view is right or wrong, but on the way that view advances our understanding of the whole picture. We shoulod think of the arguments in the light of the scientific method.

Which brings up an interesting aspect. The 2008 economic crisis (capitalist in nature) that nearly brought many economic communities to the point of collapse, is thought to have been the fault of uncontrolled American capitalism. Was anyone punished for their role in that crisis? If not, why not? Does capitalism need some controls? If so, who should control capitalism and now?

94

Karl Marx Genius Of The Modern World

by Brokeback Watchtower in

he was all for getting rid of religions and their delusions for the betterment of mankind.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mydmc1wio8.

fulltimestudent

If I was asked to write an essay on the topic, "Karl Marx, Genius of the Modern World," I believe I would have to argue in the negative.

Nonetheless, there are positive aspects to the man. We have to see him as a product of his times and appreciate his concern for the lower social classes of his times. As most histories of the nineteenth century will tell us, life was tough for workers.

We must ask however, did his influence lead to better conditions for workers? I have a suspicion that it did - in a funny sort of way. The final revolution in Russia (under Lenin, advocating Marxism) scared the 'shit' out of the ruling classes of Europe and North America and the threat of revolution led to a series of reforms during the twentieth century, though it may be hard to isolate Marx's influence against the influences of other economists.

For anyone interested in understanding Marx's influence, rather than just shouting abuse, you could look at this selection of the "Ten most Famous Economists of all Time." Its from an UK university site:

(Reference: https://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/courses/economics/the-ten-most-influential-economists-of-all-time/ )

Adam Smith is listed first and Karl Marx second, and John Maynard Keynes (deservedly, I think) is third. When it comes to the twentieth century generally, I think the selection would provoke a lot controversy. For example. the list leaves out any mention of the UK economist, John A. Hobson.

But whether one agrees with the listings or not, it helps us to understand that Marx was only one voice is a world that needed change. Our world likely continues to need change, not just from the viewpoint of poverty stricken third world people, but also from from the viewpoint of first world citizens as it seems that a greater percentage of wealth continues to be accumulated by a smaller and smaller group of wealth owners

If you want to understand the western world of the Marx;s time, you could try reading, Howard Zinn's, "A People's History of the United States." or perhaps this Sage (publishers of Academic Journals) web-page:

"The American Worker: The War Between Capital and Labour." (Web-Link: http://sageamericanhistory.net/gildedage/topics/capital_labor_immigration.html )

And reverting to Marx himself, in what seems to be a review of Jonathan Sperber's (Book) Karl Marx, (Published by Norton). The UK Guardian asks, Is Karl Marx still relevant ? in a 2013 issue.

Web-link: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/may/16/karl-marx-ideas-resonate-today

18

Sometimes I am very puzzled ...!!!

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

recently the extremely smart (so he tells us) but comparatively inexperienced person, elected by the very smart people who live in the usa, to be their president, announced that he was limiting ties with qatar (a small arab state in the middle east) on the grounds that they were supporting terrorism.. and yet, the very next day, he authorises the sale of twelve billion us dollars worth of modern american fighters (f15s) to that small state, in which is located ... .

" ... the biggest us military base in the middle east, al udeid.

ten thousand american personnel are there, many of them prosecuting the air war against isis in syria and iraq.

fulltimestudent

Its off my topic, but hell, let's analyse this comment (from above) by a poster:

"sigh.... im sure english isnt your first language but do you inderstand what you wrote...? China isnt communist execpt for that fact that they call themselves communist.... i just cant do this with you. If you want to worship chairman mao you go right ahead but you wont convince the rest of the world that the Chinese communists are anything but Chinese communists."

OK. Labels are interesting, arn't they. Let's take another label, say "christian." Thousands of groups claim that label? Are they all the same? No need to answer, its clear that between the JW extreme on one hand, and the Catholic and the Orthodox church extreme, about the only thing in common is that they use the bible and believe in Jesus,

So now lets define a starting point to see how much understanding of reality exists in the poster's cited above.

The poster did not bother to define what he meant by 'communist,' so let's do that first. We could use this Livescience definition:

https://www.livescience.com/42980-what-is-communism.html - part of which says:

"Though the term "communism" can refer to specific political parties, at its core, communism is an ideology of economic equality through the elimination of private property. ... The beliefs of communism, most famously expressed by Karl Marx, center on the idea that inequality and suffering result from capitalism. Under capitalism, private business people and corporations own all the factories, equipment and other resources called "the means of production. These owners, according to communist doctrine, can then exploit workers, who are forced sell their labor for wages."

So I don't know which narrow strip of land that the referred to poster thinks is the "whole world, " but the fact is that China could certainly once have been called 'communist,' but with the death of Mao, and the elevation of Deng Xiao Ping to leadership of China, there also came a change in the faction controlling the government. Mao had called Deng and others like him, "capitalist roaders." Why? Clearly because they argued against the centrally controlled economic planning that was then in use.

Deng was pragmatic, that is, he advocated that whatever worked best, was the right thing to do. So today we find that more than half of the vast Chinese economy is controlled by what some call 'private enterprise.' That is, the government does not own them.

Just one example, while the above poster may think that his imagined communist Chinese government owns General Motors, they plainly do not. Now he likely does not know it, but General Motors in China seems to be selling more cars in China, than it does in the USA. Is that communism?

Slate*, an on-line news magazine, which the above poster likely thinks is a COMMUNIST magazine, looked at the question of whether China was still communist and concluded:

"General Motors sold more cars in China than in the United States in the first half of 2010, and China now accounts for one-quarter of the company's global sales. That seems like a lot of capitalism for a country that calls itself communist. How communist is China, really?
Not very. Since the end of the Cultural Revolution in 1976, China has all but abandoned the tenets of classical marxism, including collective ownership of the means of production. Nowadays, just about everything is at least partly privatized. Whereas the Chinese Communist Party under Chairman Mao owned every factory and farm in the nation, the economy is now a patchwork of public and private businesses."

Source:

* Slate was created in 1996 by former New Republic editor Michael Kinsley, initially under the ownership of Microsoft as part of MSN. On 21 December 2004, it was purchased by The Washington Post Company, later renamed the Graham Holdings Company. Since 4 June 2008, Slate has been managed by The Slate Group, an online publishing entity created by the Graham Holdings Company to develop and manage web-only magazines. Slate is based in New York City, with an additional office in Washington, DC.