RE: The crux of Leftist thinking has nothing to do with Marx..
If you're sure that "it is all about efficiency of the individual to maximize their own rewards", that is the reflection of your moral essence.
Maximizing their own rewards can be emotional, not just material.
To frame it as something negative is reflective of your own moral essence.
...see how this works?
Many altruistic people exist, and they do marvelously in groups of the like-minded.
So this confirms my argument precisely - IF altruism was so widespread, you couldn't describe it as something exceptional.
The fact it is exceptional, proves my point.
Self interest is the norm, altruism is exception.
Looking at society, we have to look the majority of group behaviors, not the exceptions.
Until their content, thriving group is infiltrated by capitalists.
Maximizing their own rewards can be emotional, not just material.
To frame it as something negative is reflective of your own moral essence.
There is considerable emotion connected with capitalistic gain. Why else would they amass more than they could spend in several lifetimes, and still crave more.
The capitalist harvests profit from the work of others. That is not their own reward, at least not for producing anything constructive, because the capitalist never does. The workers do.
That is by definition a negative for everyone except the minuscule profit taking minority at the top.
IF altruism was so widespread, you couldn't describe it as something exceptional.
Altruism is exceptional in a capitalist society, which we are. However, (please forgive the metaphor) in a cesspool everything smells like shit. That doesn't mean the whole world does, or even that it's the preferable condition.
...see how this works?
BTW, I'm not a Marxist; I just see capitalism for what it is.
BTW, I'm not a Marxist; I just see capitalism for what it is.
It's strange in capitalistic societies how nutrition goes up, education goes up, life expectancy goes up, income goes up...
no other economic system has this correlation...
ergo, what's the best system to adopt?
Because some get richer than others doesn't change the fact that everyone's lives improve.
(crony capitalism, is not capitalism)
Central banks prevent capitalism (and is just the back door to communism , ...through the crony capitalist system that we are in right now.)
so you do not consider the US, or the West for that matter, to be truly capitalist.
What then is your concept of capitalism, and where does it exist, other than in theory?
Before central banking, capitalism wasn't theory - it was the method of economics.
Capitalism is...
....can I borrow 'X', and I'll give it you back at a later date. I'll give you X plus an agreed bit extra. as a thank you.
It's really simple and is not theory.... you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours is capitalism.
And socialism is, I need a dozen eggs. In return, I've got a gallon of milk to give you.
No money involved. Therefore no debt, no usury.,
RE Because some get richer than others doesn't change the fact that everyone's lives improve
That's not accurate. Presently the average US citizen is not doing well, especially if you compare it to the 60s.
Meanwhile the top fraction of 1% have almost all of the wealth; the most extreme gap in history.
RE your economics brush up, here's something that may interest you. A video, and an essay (neither by me). I had some other stuff but I'm not finding it right now. If these two pieces do interest you and you'd like more, let me know and I'll have another look.
Who really owns the USA
“Creating Wealth” Through Debt: The West’s Finance-Capitalist Road
By Michael Hudson
I know my history, from 1776 to the Jekyll island, and fed res.,thanks.
You are talking about crony capitalism.
The debt based banking system (lets say 1913 for arguments sake) will always end up where we are now. 1% -99%.
It's a mathematical certainty.
That is not socialism. What about the hungry neighbor?- that's socialism- when they split everything 3 ways...irrelevant of input of production.
socialism necessities central administration to redistribute resources ...so everyone is 'equal'.
😂
Tax is theft.
You don't need money for debt.
Usury (not compound interest), is a healthy market mechanism to work out the value of money and goods.
The debt based banking system (lets say 1913 for arguments sake) will always end up where we are now. 1% -99%.
It's a mathematical certainty.
Mistake. But that's a complex subject, perhaps another argument we may take up later
Usury (not compound interest), is a healthy market mechanism to work out the value of money and goods
Now you are actually getting to the core.
Goods (and services) have value. Money in fact has no value. Neither does gold, other than when it is made into shiny jewelry, or electronic components.
Money is an abstract concept. Its value only holds as long as the bargaining parties continue to have faith that it will be redeemed for something of real value.
When I go to the bank and get a $10,000 loan, your bank account doesn't suddenly go down by $10,000.
Nor does anybody elses, not even the bank's.
Instead they create that amount with a few keyboard strokes. Money created out of thin air.
And more importantly, debt created out of thin air.
The capitalist banker will not have to actually work to validate that sum,but the profit will accrue in his offshore account nevertheless.
It is the I worker, the victim of that fiat creation, who will have to work it off, by painting cars or digging ditches or shooting Syrians or baking bread or whatever.
The only real connection is that the banker will eat the bread that I bake, even though he has contributed zero towards it. For which he will pay me with a fiction once again.
Paycheck slavery, defined.
Since you know about Jekyll island, you know more than most.
Root around some more in that vicinity (not that particular event, but the related creating/affecting tangents and principals).
It's a mathematical certainty.
...this mean you don't understand.
I know a lot more than most . (You haven't read my post on banking from the 15 century up to to modern day, obviously...)
If you think that a debt based fiat system is not mathematical certainty of how it transpires to wealth disparity over time - as it is doing now, and you think I a mistaken ..... you need to read more.
(Your understanding of of socialism was woefully incorrect, for example.)
good luck
That's actually capitalism. You give something that is your's for something that is his. He gives something that is from him for something that is yours.
There has to be no money involved or usury or so.
Giving someone something, without asking something in return.....is capitalism too.
You give something that is from you to someone.
Socialism is taking something that is not yours from someone, to "give" it to someone else.
@wordsword, ideally in a socialist system the producers of the 'something', the workers, voluntarily pooled the "something" (the true wealth), and you are distributing it, not 'taking' it. As stated by @lucylin, “we all work together for the common good.”
The difference is that in socialism you distribute the wealth equally to all whereas in capitalism you distribute it equally in your own pocket - with enough crumbs to the workers (trickle down) to keep them working. In practice too often even that doesn't happen which is why we have strikes and riots and starvation. After all, the basis of capitalism is maximizing profit.
In both systems it is the “you”, the allocator (controller) of the wealth which is the power point, and therefore the point that attracts actus reus; the point where the 'ideal' is corrupted.
Ultimately the only salient point is, as lucylin said, “is altruism real... or not?”
lucylin argues 'not'.
He's wrong. If he were right, the world would be universally controlled by Thrasymachus (might makes right).
In reality, thankfully, that is not yet universal.
People that want a socialistic system can always pool something together voluntarily and distribute it equally voluntarily. (edit, But then it's not a socialistic system anymore.)
If I trade with someone, is that someone my worker and am I his worker?
Like in the example with the eggs and milk. Who is the the worker and who is the boss?
If you have decided that for you the dozen eggs are enough to trade for a gallon of milk and vice versa, then who else must interfere and what right does he or she have to interfere between you two making a voluntary trade you both agree on?
Can you dictate him how much eggs he must give you for your gallon milk and force him to give that to you for your gallon milk? If not ...why not? If so...why?
If altruism is real or not stand apart from might makes right and the universality thereof.