[jonlancaster]

I have studied economic theory relatively extensively relative to most people, and I have come to the conclusion that the economic case for socialism is very weak. Most often arguments for socialism use a series of economic and logical fallacies and have an appeal because the explanations are easy to understand and based on distrust. I would like to see someone present a convincing, intellectual case for socialism, and I issue this challenge to the socialists of politicsforum.

[Wolfman]

[notasocialist]Have you tried reading Das Kapital? Most of the folks here are basically going to tell you to read it[/notasocialist]

[jonlancaster]

I actually have a rented copy of it on my desk. I read about a hundred pages of it, and I found it as boring as hell. Is it worth reading?

[Wolfman]

Never read it. Not a socialist, remember?

[ozone]

Reading Das Kapital makes my day a good one..I don't know why. Maybe there is something good in me..Feels good too.

Das Kapital Volume 1,2,3. Grundisse. Early Writings (of Marx)

[Sceptic]

They can't make the case. I recently made a post 'Questions for Socialists' asking about the issues of subjective theory of value/marginal utility, scarcity and uncertainty in the Socialist Commonwealth placed into specific contexts (e.g. how will producers know what to produce without prices on the factors of production and market signals, etc.) and found no real answers except perhaps 'the people will decide!'

Just about all Marxism can be debunked by the simple fact there is no objective value or Aristotlean just price formula. Its a parasitic, self-serving ideology built on naive stupidity and geared towards total obliteration of the economy as we know it.

Market socialism is more sensical. If you want an intelligent defence, I fully recommend David Schweickart.

[Eauz]

and I have come to the conclusion that the economic case for socialism is very weak.

Then a good first post would have presented some of these cases.

[grassroots1]

I think different types of socialists have different ideas about specifics, although admittedly many do not consider the specifics at all. Maybe this post and the link presented could shed some light on the theories of one type of socialist:

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=129213&p=13747292#p13747292

[Dagoth Ur]

I would like to see someone present a convincing, intellectual case for socialism

Das Kapital

Done.

I actually have a rented copy of it on my desk. I read about a hundred pages of it, and I found it as boring as hell. Is it worth reading?

If you're not going to give pretty much the most developed socialist ever a thorough reading before you discount socialism you're making some serious logical fallacies there.

[Sceptic]

Since people think they can just vaguely refer to 'Das Kapital' I will just vaguely refer to 'Marginal Revolution'. We're not living in the 19th Century anymore

[ozone]

I might be sometimes espousing capitalism in my on and off rants but whenever I think of workers in the Philippines going hungry with not enough bus fare to go to work, I admit to myself the validity of Marx's theories of exploitation in Das Kapital. I keep on borrowing and returning Das Kapital 1,2,3, Grundisse and Early Writings again and again and again in the public library. Feels good whan Marx talks about me, a very very convinced communist to the very depths of my soul....

[Julian]

I would base the case for socialism on a range of arguments not just economic

Let me suggest three

1) capitalism has led to a progressive widening in inequality both in the richest countries and between the richest and the poorest countries
2) the huge gap between rich and poor has led to a squandering of resources on unnecessary and wasteful production in support of the lifestyles and priorities of the worlds richest
3) greater planning is needed to provide sustainable economic growth. otherwise there is a risk of multiple degradation of the environment

Set against that is the "marginal revolution"

a theory that needs are determined most efficiently by price setting

a theory that might convincingly argue that planners would be wise to use price as a guide in the fast moving consumer goods market but has no other very significant consequences.

[Sceptic]

1) capitalism has led to a progressive widening in inequality both in the richest countries

No it hasn't. Inequality in income range is less than ever before in countries like UK (post industrial revolution), US, France, Germany, etc. Why is it that the US, which has the most number of billionaires in the world is not the poorest country?

and between the richest and the poorest countries

Because of 'exploitation', right? Then why is the majority of the richest nation's (US) trade links are with other rich nations, like UK, Japan, China, etc., etc. and not poor, third world countries like Africa? Why is it also that this graph shows a direct correlation (don't site cum hoc, ergo propter hoc!) between wealth and economic freedom?

2) the huge gap between rich and poor has led to a squandering of resources on unnecessary and wasteful production in support of the lifestyles and priorities of the worlds richest
3) greater planning is needed to provide sustainable economic growth. otherwise there is a risk of multiple degradation of the environment

Right.

Set against that is the "marginal revolution"

a theory that needs are determined most efficiently by price setting

a theory that might convincingly argue that planners would be wise to use price as a guide in the fast moving consumer goods market but has no other very significant consequences.

A lot more than that - it essentially abolishes the concept that one can even begin to consider a command economy resulting in anything but pure autosufficient production and provision through charity given that factors of production need to be co-ordinated by money and producers need prices to know what to produce.

[Wolfman]

No it hasn't. Inequality in income range is less than ever before in countries like UK (post industrial revolution), US, France, Germany, etc.

Evidence?

Why is it that the US, which has the most number of billionaires in the world is not the poorest country?

One word: Welfare.

Because of 'exploitation', right? Then why is the majority of the richest nation's (US) trade links are with other rich nations, like UK, Japan, China, etc., etc. and not poor, third world countries like Africa?

Who said anything about trade partners being the only method of exploitation? What about the hilarious bullshit that companies like Dole does every day? Or does that not happen?

Why is it also that this graph shows a direct correlation (don't site cum hoc, ergo propter hoc!) between wealth and economic freedom?

What graph? The only relationship between wealth and freedom I've seen was insanely biased, and basically an outright lie.

[grassroots1]

No it hasn't. Inequality in income range is less than ever before in countries like UK (post industrial revolution), US, France, Germany, etc. Why is it that the US, which has the most number of billionaires in the world is not the poorest country?

Two words: welfare state.

Edit: damn Wolfman, you beat me to it.

[Wolfman]

I am everywhere you want to be Grass roots. I'm just there first.

[Julian]

A lot more than that - it essentially abolishes the concept that one can even begin to consider a command economy resulting in anything but pure autosufficient production and provision through charity given that factors of production need to be co-ordinated by money and producers need prices to know what to produce

thats not marginalism. thats simply assertion

there are in established social democracies a range of products, services and outcomes determined without prices. and there are various ways to determine demand without prices including iterative planning.

[Sceptic]

Evidence?

Gini coefficients are a relatively recent update in economics so its difficult to provide such evidence. However, as an empirical statement, it is not to controversial to state that post-industrial circumstances are more egalitarian and, more importantly, living standards have raised (since the gap between the rich and the poor is not exclusively corrolational with lower income bracket standards). Industrialisation is always a bumpy ride.

One word: Welfare.

Perhaps. But I was comparing the relative economic freedom as contrasted between the western world and third world dictatorships. No-one said anything about abolishing welfare either.

Who said anything about trade partners being the only method of exploitation? What about the hilarious bullshit that companies like Dole does every day? Or does that not happen?

Not saying it doesn't happen. Just saying that it doesn't account for the wealth acquired by third world nations. Also note the weakness of the law courts in that case you sighted in prosecuting Dole.

What graph? The only relationship between wealth and freedom I've seen was insanely biased, and basically an outright lie.

I had meant to cite that graph inthe OP.

thats not marginalism. thats simply assertion

Its not assertion; if one accepts marginal utility, then the rest follows logically. Also there is much more to marginalism than Freihrer's points about prices, consumption and economic calculation; it forms the basis of all modern economics and provides a superior theory of value over the LTV. I elaborate on the concept of autosfficient production in small scale societies and relate this to the nature of command economies and capitalist economies in large scale societies here.

there are in established social democracies a range of products, services and outcomes determined without prices.

Not absent a market they don't. I mean, one might think British healthcare prices are determined arbitrarily but the existence of private healthcare clinics (such as Bupa) provide a market for comparison. This allows governments to attach prices onto the cost of medicine, wages for nurses and doctors etc. based on the price determined by the external private market in healthcare. The only flaw here is that the prices have to lower since the nature of private healthcare clinics is they provide higher quality/luxury services for higher paying customers who don't need universal healthcare. Quality can be ensured by allocating subsidisation based on consumer use (i.e. funds - determined by above procedures - allocated for every consumers). So no price can be determined absent a market for comparison.

there are various ways to determine demand without prices including iterative planning.

I'll check that later...

[Wolfman]

Gini coefficients are a relatively recent update in economics so its difficult to provide such evidence. However, as an empirical statement, it is not to controversial to state that post-industrial circumstances are more egalitarian and, more importantly, living standards have raised (since the gap between the rich and the poor is not exclusively corrolational with lower income bracket standards). Industrialisation is always a bumpy ride.

It seems like you're saying that Post-Industrial nations are lower on the Gini scale, but the US has had a rising Gini rate since the mid 70s. And of the other Post-Industrial countries, most of them have significant Welfare policies.

Perhaps. But I was comparing the relative economic freedom as contrasted between the western world and third world dictatorships. No-one said anything about abolishing welfare either.

Trying to compare the US and any third world state is a pretty weird idea.

Not saying it doesn't happen.

It just happens all of the damn time. I'd be willing to say that any company that deals with third (and probably second) world countries does something that shits on the rights of the people.

Just saying that it doesn't account for the wealth acquired by third world nations.

Wealth acquired by third world nations? Do you mean wealth acquired by first world nations from third world nations?

Also note the weakness of the law courts in that case you sighted in prosecuting Dole.

What does that have to do with anything? Big business (for lack of a better term) basically owns the US government, why would they not control our courts?

I had meant to cite that graph inthe OP

The problem with this graph is that it's based heavily on the findings of the Heritage Foundation, which is incredibly biased. In its list of Top Ten countries with the most economic freedom, eight of them either are, or be considered Social Democracies, because except for the US and Bahrain, each of those countries has a universal healthcare and education scheme, heavy market interventions and half of them have fairly high tax rates.