It is incredibly depressing. Clinton or Trump.

You guys may well be right that Trump won’t be quite as bad. But I just don’t trust him to be not as bad. I think he’s going to be every bit under pressure from the neocons as Clinton, and his own rabid fans endlessly say “America needs to get tough,” and all too many of their political rallies just smell like German Beer-hall putsches to me.

This election seems to be a choice between losing your arm or losing your leg.

Futile or not, I’m voting for Stein.

C-M-C and use value: C for commodity. M for money. C for commodity. Use value meaning a product with a specific use, not dependent upon its ability to be bought or sold or resold.

M-C-M and exchange value: M for money. C for commodity. M for money. And exchange value. Commodities under capitalism are produced primarily for their exchange value, not their use value.

The capitalist purchases labor power, as a commodity, in order to produce commodities for money the capitalist appropriates. He or she takes what workers make for him or herself. Basically, theft. Workers have no control over the fruits of their own labor under capitalism. It’s legally not theirs, from the get go, which is also unique to capitalism. Under capitalism, for the first time, actual, direct producers (workers) don’t own their own work. They did under feudalism, even though they had to give the local lord a cut of the action. They still received the vast majority of the fruits of their own labor, and their production was not, by rights, the local lord’s from the get go.

Capitalism basically gives the local lord — now the capitalist — far greater rights than he previously had. All of the work, every last bit of it, is the capitalist’s, even though very few capitalists do the actual production themselves. It’s extremely rare that they’re involved in direct production, and it’s impossible for them to ever, ever do as much as their workforce.

And, remember. A single proprietor is not a capitalist, 99% of the time. A self-employed person is not a capitalist, 99% of the time. Lone wolf hedge fund managers, yeah. They do the M-C-M thing by basically bypassing the purchase of labor power, though they take advantage, of course, of all the labor power making the financial system go. So, indirectly, they, too, purchase it. But they’re primarily capitalists because they do M for M and perpetually in the exchange value mode, and their “job” is to keep the capitalist system as is, concentrating wealth, power, privilege and access at the very top. They don’t do C-M-C and use value.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Billy_T.

Also, W,

No one would go to the gallows. They’d just have a brand new way of doing things, and they’d see the results of this new way as generating a far, far better life for everyone, except for former millionaires and billionaires. They, too, would have a very good life in the new system. They just wouldn’t be able to live like sultans any longer.

Everyone would have access to the highest quality free education, medical care, transportation, cultural venues, parks and rec and so on. The “commons” would be vast and there for everyone. The amount of innovation, artistic and intellectual endeavors would explode off the charts, because everyone would get their chance to express their fullest potential as human beings. Again, no one would be denied access due to lack of money. Money no longer woujld be the key to entrance. They would have, as a birthright, free access to all the basics.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Billy_T.

The change of laws would be rather easy to make. It would no longer be legal to privately own a commercial enterprise. You can grow and make stuff for yourself and your family, give it away to friends and neighbors if you want to. And this is actually encouraged. Cooperative living is encouraged. But you can’t have a privately held business that sells products to others. The existing legal tender wouldn’t be accepted in any of these transactions. Legal tender would only be legal with regard to publicly held commerce. Legal tender no longer includes dollars. They’re as worthless as Confederate money. All “money” is in the form of digits, and those digits come from publicly held banks, with accounts for individuals, communities, regions and the nation. This stream of funding is in no way connected to “sales.” Sales are entirely irrelevant, other than as a way to help project community need and production.

You complained about where we’d get charity, if rich people and corporations no longer exist. We wouldn’t need it. First off, EVERYONE would make more than living wages, without exceptions. There would be no such thing as “the working poor.” No poor would exist, either. It’s impossible, as all citizens are guaranteed safe food, water, housing, clothing and the like, along with cradle to grave education, health care, transportation, parks and rec, cultural venues, etc. etc. All of that is funded by those separate, publicly owned banks. No need for any charity from anyone. We already have the funding covered.

Capitalism would be “illegal” ? I know of no “laws” that make it either legal or illegal. Do you? And how does that exactly work?. The guy on the street selling sandals so he can eat or the girl scout cookie girls or the lemonade stand kids — they’re all going to the gallows? Would you make corporations such as Ben & Jerrys, Patagonia, H & M( all noted for their contributions to the welfare of our society) illegal? Would Bill Gates be allowed to contribute millions to medical research and the hopeful cure for Autism? Or would that be left to a political committee?

What I see in this discussion is imagining a small group of professors in a small eastern college with tweed jackets and smoking pipes talking about stuff that they believe the masses cannot understand. I say nonsense. Lets get on with it in the real world.

W,

You’re making some very common errors. First, you’ve naturalized capitalism as if it’s always been with us, that it exists outside our laws, regulations, institutions, etc. etc. You’ve made it seem like it’s a part of nature, rather than a human invention, contingent on a very complex set of laws, rules, state support and so on. And, you’re confusing “commerce” with “capitalism.” In reality, “capitalism” is an entirely unique and unprecedented form of commerce that did not exist anywhere until it appeared in 17th century Britain, not being a significant factor in others parts of the world until the 19th century, and not dominant here until after the Civil War.

Prior to the Civil War, most Americans were not involved with the capitalist system. Most were self-employed, small farmers, artisans, craftspersons, etc. who worked within their own local, independent markets, not yet subsumed under the umbrella of capitalism.

(As with the previous posts, I’ll split this up)

Again, the key is this. Starting over, with a brand new legal system. Capitalism would no longer be legal. It would no longer have any legal support. Dollars would no longer have any value. Commercial transactions outside of this new dispensation would be without any legal protections or support. Bartering is fine, though. Just no capitalist exchanges or enterprises.

Also, even though we’d have a brand new Constitution, there are many parts of our current one that would allow for the transition. Like, the general welfare clause, the equal protection clause, the commerce clause, and the necessary and proper clause. All of those would allow us a legal way to transition away from capitalism, until we all came up with our own Constitution.

And, to me, we need to. The old one was basically written by less than a half dozen white men who owned slaves, with next to no input from the vast, vast majority of Americans.

We can do better.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Billy_T.

W,

It’s fine, all things considered. A year and a half now without any chemo. Knock on the proverbial wood. Thanks for asking.

No worries about ending the conversation on the topic. Not a lot of people like talking about this stuff.

But I hope you’d at least consider this, about those wolves. From my reading and observations of real life, I don’t see most people as wolves. I see a very tiny minority in that light. Most people just want to get along, eat, drink, be merry, make love and so on — and are surprisingly selfless**. They’re actually very few Napoleons among us, though the capitalist system gives them wings. I’d rather have a system that doesn’t encourage them, promote them, protect them and bail them out when they fail. I’d rather have a system that has social justice baked in from the start, and doesn’t empower sociopaths (wolves).

**Naturally altruistic

More goodins.

I used to write all kinds of things down in little notebooks. Was obsessed with doing this in the 1980s, especially. I think it lasted up into the very early 1990s, but then I stopped. Larger notebooks after that, but I tended just to jot down general feelings about my readings, and not go into major details.

I miss have that kind of intellectual fire and passion for the new. At my age, far too much of that is gone. I fear more than a decade of chemo has something to do with this, and just life itself. It can beat that excitement out of you — if you let it. I just need to fight harder against that.

Thanks, WV.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Billy_T.
• This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Billy_T.

WV,

Going back to your mention of lots of “socialisms,” which is spot up. Makes me think of the knee-jerk reaction I always hear:

“Every time it’s been tried, it’s been a disaster!! Look at Russia!!” etc. etc.

First off, it’s never been tried. Russia instituted state capitalism, not socialism. Second, I’ve never understood how normally intelligent people, who would have no trouble understanding that different times, context and inputs equal different results, would insist that every attempt at “socialisms” is destined to repeat what happened in Russia, or China, etc. etc.

Any alternative tried in America, for instance, is going to have completely different variables, inputs, context, environments . . . which means different results. It’s literally impossible for it to reproduce what happened elsewhere, at different historical times.

It’s always struck me as a weird sort of blindness when it comes to normal cause and effect. Nittany’s our resident scientist, right? Maybe he can weigh in on how that works.

So, basically, W, I’m just not getting your objections. In every case, the system I describe would do infinitely better than our current one . . . on all scores. Everyone would have a voice. Everyone would get to hash out their objections, put in their two cents, should we do this, should we do that, let’s try this or that. That’s NOT the case under capitalism. Which means you’re not going to have a bunch of wolves killing the sheep. You’re going to have town meetings, workplace meetings, with everyone having an equal say, all voices heard, and then votes. No bosses. No political parties. The lowest levels of hierarchy possible — closing in on none. Rotating facilitators. No permanent power structures. No elections. Lotteries for civil service and workplace facilitators instead.

In capitalism, you have a few wolves eating up all the sheep. You have a few wolves deciding EVERYTHING for all the sheep. No dissent is allowed. It’s the boss’s way or the highway. No chance for democratic processes, debate, resolving conflicts using that process. You do what he or she says, or you don’t keep your job — and the bosses receive the lion’s share, even though they never do the lion’s share of work. And, as consumers, you get to buy what they tell you to buy, while making you believe you have “choice,” though you don’t. And most of that “choice” is the same old same old thing, cuz Capitalism encourages sameness, cuz mass production reduces costs, etc.

Again, not getting your objections.

I think what your describing is a system designed to preserve human liberties while forcing everyone into communal economic arrangements. The key is to have “the people” collectively make all important economic decisions. Well your faith in the people to make decisions for the betterment of all is much stronger than mine. All I need to do is look at the Trump movement.

W, I’ll break down your comment into halves or thirds and go from there:

As mentioned, people are forced into collectivist economic arrangements now, under capitalism. If they are not independently wealthy — and only a tiny, tiny fraction is — they have no choice but to sell their labor to others, to be dependent upon capitalists whose every incentive is to pay them as little as possible. Capitalists gain their wealth through the mass collectivization of unpaid labor. They make their fortunes by the grotesque suppression of wages. If they ever paid value for value, they’d never make that fortune. It is literally mathematically impossible.

As for faith in the people. I have far more faith that democratic decisions made by workers on the shop room floor, and communities themselves, will be far more beneficial to “the people” than ANY decision made by capitalists. If fact, why do YOU have faith in our current system, which concentrates vast power, wealth and privilege in the hands of the few, who then decide for everyone else. Seriously, why on earth would you support that and feel comfortable with that, but not with turning things over to EVERYONE to decide? And I mean literally everyone in the community. No political party. No group from Animal Farm, lording it over everyone else. I’m saying, direct, participatory democracy, where everyone has an equal say, equal voice and everyone is co-owner.

The comment about Trump baffles me, so I’ll wait for your elaboration.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Billy_T.
• This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Billy_T.
• This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Billy_T.

Somewhere I read that collectivism and individualism are political oil and water.

And this? Capitalism requires collectivism. It can’t function without it. Modern societies can’t function without collectivism. Our current system collectivizes the workforce, consumers and the state on the behalf of the few, the rich, the plutocratic and oligarchical. From where I sit, it has never helped “individualism” in the slightest. In fact, it helps produce mass people, cogs in the machine, who buy mass produced crap, and seek to look like everyone else, watch the same shows, play the same music, etc. etc.

Socialism uses “collectivism” in the fairest, most moral, ethical and humane way. The collective works on behalf of the collective, not a few bosses. One could say this is “left-collectivism” versus “right-collectivism,” with the latter being capitalism. The right-collectivism version has the collective work to make a few people very rich. I find that to be obscenely immoral, unethical and unsustainable.

ZN, or any other mods? Any way to shrink the youtube I just posted?

• This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Billy_T.

No one so far has been able to stand up to Clinton in a debate including the entire Republican house committee on Benghazi. I doubt Stein could either. The gal is tough as nails as is Warren. I have not seen Stein in combat.

W,

I think Stein would best her in debate. But Clinton will trounce Trump. Trump is easily one of the most ignorant candidates from either party we’ve ever seen. He has zero knowledge of foreign affairs, how the economy works, how government works, current events, history — you name it. If he’s not flat out lying — which is his default mode — he just pulls nonsense out of his butt. Like, when the Brexit vote hit. He was in Scotland, and he praised the Scottish for voting to leave the EU. Trouble is, they didn’t. They voted overwhelmingly to stay.

He has a Palin-like grasp of the issues. Which is to say, he’s totally clueless. A clueless lying narcissist is not going to do well in debates.

W,

You were likely a young idealist when you worked for RFK. Would you support him today? From my memories and my subsequent readings, I think it’s safe to say he wouldn’t even be a Dem right now. I’m guessing he’d be a Green. From the things he said and did on his last campaign, placing him alongside Sanders is more than fair, and RFK, unlike Sanders, constantly talked about the poor in America. Sanders, like so many others, focuses primarily on the “middle class.”

RFK went to the Delta. He went to Native American reservations. He was always doing and saying stuff to highlight the plight of the poor. And, man, he had courage. He risked his life, constantly, despite being told by his advisors about death threats. But that didn’t stop him — until it did.

I don’t see that in American politics anymore. Again, I could be wrong with this counterfactual, but I don’t see him wanting to be a Democrat, if he were alive today.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by Billy_T.