All Communists are dead-beats

[quadraginta]

From ADAM SMITH AND AMARTYA SEN:
MARKETS AND FAMINES IN PRE-INDUSTRIAL EUROPE

...it would seem that a
backward agriculture, coupled with the lack of an adequate
policy response from the authorities, rather than the failure
of the markets for staple foodstuffs to work, were mainly
responsible for the famines analysed here.

http://www.princeton.edu/rpds/seminars/pdfs/grada_smithsen.pdf

That was an interesting paper. I enjoyed reading it. Thank you.

I'm not sure exactly how it makes the point you seem to think it makes.

Its theme is apparently that economic market forces and the influence that governments have on them are not as great a reason for famines as has been suggested by Adam Smith and Amartya Sen. (It is worth noting that the two men did not share a common opinion about what those market forces were.)

It begins with this ...

ABSTRACT

​

How markets perform during famines has long been a contentious issue. Recent research tends to associate famine with market segmentation and hoarding. The evidence of this paper, based on an analysis of the spatial and temporal patterns of food price movements during four famines in preindustrial Europe, is that markets functioned ‘normally’ in times of crisis

and ends with this lead -in sentence in the final summary paragraph from which you so carefully excerpted your quote.

Taken together, our results do not rule out a further role for markets in exacerbating these crises: a fall in purchasing power in the worst-affected regions could have aggravated one or more of them because markets were so well integrated. That is an issue worth exploring further.

The sentence fragment you did choose to share would probably have been less disingenuous if you had not chosen ellipsis to replace the beginning of the sentence, the single word and comma "Still,", which alters both the tenor and intent more than just a little bit.

"Still, it would seem that ..."
​

See what I mean?

The paper does not seem to attempt a case that capitalism (or mercantilism, for that matter) bore no responsibility for the Great Famine in Ireland, but rather that there were other factors which also need to be considered, and are generally overlooked.

Perhaps you could single out some more ... and more complete ... citations from it to better explain what you think its relevance is.

 

[Virus]

The relevant section is what I quoted. You say that capitalism is to blame for the Irish famine, without really giving an explanation on why, and Grada says it was backward agriculture and inadequate policy were mainly responsible. I emphasize the word mainly because I assume we are talking about what was primarily responsible and not what were mitigating factors. I understand Grada doesn't eliminate the possibility that markets may have exacerbated the problem, but you asserted that capitalism caused it, not that capitalism exacerbated it.

 

[bit_pattern]

You say that capitalism is to blame for the Irish famine, without really giving an explanation on why

Actually, I have given you a reason, you just chose to ignore it

 

[Virus]

Maybe for the same reason they're called "Communist countries", because the term lacks any precision in common usage and is employed more as a pejorative than a true descriptor.

But those regimes called themselves communist.

 

[quadraginta]

But those regimes called themselves communist.

The right-wing conservative party in Japan calls themselves the Liberal Democrats. I guess that means they must be.

 

[bikerdruid]

Don't think you can be a communist in NYC. Sure, you can think it's a good idea and call yourself a communist, but at the end of the day you're going to work, paying your bills, and shopping like everyone else.

...are you saying that communists don't work, pay bills or shop?

 

[Virus]

From the Communist Manifesto;

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Seems like a recipe for absolute state control of everything ie. totalitarianism.

 

[dirtywick]

...are you saying that communists don't work, pay bills or shop?

Read further along.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

From the Communist Manifesto;



Seems like a recipe for absolute state control of everything ie. totalitarianism.

Not to me. Totalitarianism is when a government controls all of civil society. Civil society is comprised of more than factories, i.e. arts, sciences, speech, religion.

Unless you want to apply the slippery slope, which is fine by me. But that makes it an unforeseen consequence, not a defining attribute.

 

[Virus]

Not to me. Totalitarianism is when a government controls all of civil society. Civil society is comprised of more than factories, i.e. arts, sciences, speech, religion.

Unless you want to apply the slippery slope, which is fine by me. But that makes it an unforeseen consequence, not a defining attribute.

Sort of. It's a blueprint that avowed totalitarians like Lenin can work with.

 

[bit_pattern]

Sort of. It's a blueprint that avowed totalitarians like Lenin can work with.

And Milton Friedman gave the blueprint for avowed totalitarians like Pinochet to work with, but that doesn't mean that free market capitalism is inherently totalitarian.

 

[Travis]

Communism: leading us to slavery in the name of bettering things for the "people."

Capitalism: leading us to slavery because "money rules."


Yeah, there's reasons we should not let either get out of hand.

 

[eerok]

Communism: leading us to slavery in the name of bettering things for the "people."

There's a grievous (some would say unconscionable) disparity between the rich and poor in the US, but of course, the actual likelihood of communist revolution in America is nil.

Capitalism: leading us to slavery because "money rules."

Corporations already own America.

 

[Travis]

There's a grievous (some would say unconscionable)

Yes, we call those people "idiots."

disparity between the rich and poor in the US, but of course, the actual likelihood of communist revolution in America is nil.

I'm all in favor of progressive taxes and think we should let the Bush tax cuts expire. I'm not in favor of abolishing all private property.

Corporations already own America.

Evidence?

 

[dc1971]

I know a few Communists. None of them are very succesful in life.

They don't make much money, they haven't achieved much in their careers.

They tend to be single.

Some of them, are total bums...living in their mom's basement with very low level jobs that they hate.

What they ALL have in common, is great resentment towards folks who have achieved, or at least make a decent attempt to.

They go on and on about how the gov. should give them this, the gov. should give them that, and how some day..they will simply RISE UP and take what they want.

Like I said....dead-beats.

Questions? Comments? Please leave a message after the beep.

When you say communists, do you mean those who follow the ideology of communism, or they follow classic communism (ie Marxism) or are you referring to the people Glenn Beck and many conservatives refer to as communists?

 

[eerok]

Corporations already own America.

Evidence?

The judicial concept of "corporate personhood" considers a corporation equivalent to an individual with respect to political contributions.

This is still perfectly fair, of course. It's your money against theirs.

 

[Travis]

The judicial concept of "corporate personhood" considers a corporation equivalent to an individual with respect to political contributions.

This is still perfectly fair, of course. It's your money against theirs.

That is not evidence that they literally "own" America.

 

[Virus]

And Milton Friedman gave the blueprint for avowed totalitarians like Pinochet to work with, but that doesn't mean that free market capitalism is inherently totalitarian.

Pinochet wasn't really a totalitarian.

 

[bit_pattern]

Yeah, neither was Lenin

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Pinochet wasn't really a totalitarian.

At best, that's a red herring. Unless you're seriously trying to argue that Pinochet was a nice guy.