/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>658348
u want to do the park chung hee solution

What is "the economy". If economy just mean super profits for the monopoly capitalists and the financial oligarchy, then yeah, they are good at it. But if by "economy" you mean the entirety of transactional value realization as a whole in a society, these dudes have fucking wrecked it during CoVID while at the same time getting richer.

Bill Gates in terms of macroeconomics is a retard. He has suggested retarded shit like "taxing robots" to allow for more automatization whereas everyone with a braincell can tell you that this will do nothing. Elon Musk is partly a fucking scam artist. I don't know about Jeff Bezos. The Koch brothers are control freaks who try to kill every single public infrastructure project that could reduce the reliance on cars. Warren Buffet, Jeffrey Epstein (rest in shit) and Mike Bloomberg are just financial speculators to cash in on the actual productive economy via usury and monopoly rents and literally do nothing productive.

>>658348
Explain why the Soviet Union and Communist China don't suffer from the boom and bust cycle that capitalist states do.

Then why the hell do they keep pulling financial frauds and show open unwillingness to expand and takeover foreign markets instead of relying on government subsidies?

>>658348
>I unironically think billionaires are the only people on Earth who know how the economy actually works.
Well, there are billionaires who inherited all their wealth. I recently looked through the list of the 20 richest Germans and with the exception of 2 guys who got rich with software in the 1970s, all came from money with either societally significant wealth (like the Quandt family) or at least very well-off (like the Albrecht brothers). So really, your entire assumption already falls apart by assuming that billionaires are "self-made" and got there through mere skill and knowledge, rather than being born in the right time at the right place out of the right woman's pussy.

>It's not that economics is bullshit, rather that economists have near zero experience with wealth management.
Economics is completely decoupled from reality usually because they uphold the marginalist value theory. In real life, a business-man will instinctively operate according to the labor theory of value when bossing around labor. This schism makes bourgeois economics useless. However, this doesn't negate the need for business administration degrees, accountants, lawyers, operation research, finance, information technology…billionaires don't run their business on their own, not even the money side of it. I haven't even mentioned the actual wealth-creation side of it where they obviously just leech off engineers and other talent.

>This is not to rag on Marx, but Marx never instructed us how to run an economy. We defeat the ruling class and what then? We stumble around in the dark, left as clueless as our previous government officials and economists.
This is utter bullshit anon. You have to imagine billionaires and the system they built is like content that is included on a gaming disk from launch day on, but hasn't been released yet to the player and can only be purchased with a DLC later on. That's what it is. They are just a layer of parasites added on top of whatever already runs our economy.

> You'd be a fool to think it is not vulnerable to economic crashes like every country on Earth.
That's because it is a state-capitalist country firmly embedded into the capitalist world economy.

>Much like billionaires everywhere else, the billionaires of Xi's China are unaffected by them.
You are not stating anything new here. Economic crises usually increase the wealth of the very rich and decrease the wealth of the poor. This has been known for a long time and it is precisely this contradiction of capitalism, the increasing monopolization, that socialists must take advantage of in the future.

>As ridiculous as it sounds, maybe holding billionaires at gunpoint and forcing them to dictate economic policy is the solution.
The solution is not to fetishize billionaires which is what you are doing for whatever reason. Please read more books before embarrassing yourself again, and I mean this with no malice in my heart. You seem like an alright guy otherwise.

yes, of course the bourgeoisie know what they're doing, they have an actual materialist understanding of society and business unlike petty bourgeois theorists

>>658483
Lol no read
>>658359

>>658484
>>658359
cuz they're smart and don't actually believe in laissez faire nonsense? subsidies are a crucial aspect of capital

>>658500
Dominating industries is also a part of capital, they’re relying on the belief that they can endlessly keep receiving investments that never get paid back to the public instead of doing what a true capitalist would do by dominating the entire market of the industry they work with and ensuring no other companies can compete with them regardless of what country they reside in like what boomer era companies like Boeing pull

>>658500
btw i really wish marx got to wrote the volume of capital on the state
>>658506
but they are doing that. microsoft was literally built on monopolizing everything it touched, and the more successful silicon valley companies like alphabet/google are branching out too

>>658348
Most stupid thread of the week, literally mentally ill

>>658509
what's your problem?

>>658359
bro they did frauds?? the people that run everything don't play by the rules???? they're gonna fall any day now!

Most billionaires are dumb as shit but have a lot of very well paid smart employees

What about billionaires that won lotteries?

OP here.

>>658352
Elaborate please.
>>658353
>What is "the economy".
I propose, as implied by the OP, that "the economy" is wealth management.
>these dudes have fucking wrecked it during CoVID while at the same time getting richer.
They have no fucks to give about something that doesn't affect them.
>He has suggested retarded shit like "taxing robots" to allow for more automatization whereas everyone with a braincell can tell you that this will do nothing.
I Googled it and he's talking about taxing companies that replace human workers with robots…
>Elon Musk is partly a fucking scam artist. I don't know about Jeff Bezos. The Koch brothers are control freaks who try to kill every single public infrastructure project that could reduce the reliance on cars. Warren Buffet, Jeffrey Epstein (rest in shit) and Mike Bloomberg are just financial speculators to cash in on the actual productive economy via usury and monopoly rents and literally do nothing productive.
Yes, and? I never implied they had an interest in acting for the benefit of all.
>>658355
>Explain why the Soviet Union and Communist China don't suffer from the boom and bust cycle that capitalist states do.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405473915000197
The Soviet Union has, in fact, had recessions. Which makes sense. Even the most rudimentary economy can experience a recession from, for example, inadequate reaction to a natural disaster.
I will not comment on "Communist China" (are you referring to the Mao era?) because I am not familiar with its method of governing or how it differs from the Soviet one, if someone could give me a tl;dr breakdown I would appreciate it.
>>658359
>Then why the hell do they keep pulling financial frauds and show open unwillingness to expand and takeover foreign markets instead of relying on government subsidies?
Because that is their prerogative? Gambling money "honestly" is for the petty-bourgeoisie.
>>658361
>Well, there are billionaires who inherited all their wealth. I recently looked through the list of the 20 richest Germans and with the exception of 2 guys who got rich with software in the 1970s, all came from money with either societally significant wealth (like the Quandt family) or at least very well-off (like the Albrecht brothers). So really, your entire assumption already falls apart by assuming that billionaires are "self-made" and got there through mere skill and knowledge, rather than being born in the right time at the right place out of the right woman's pussy.
I wasn't implying they were self-made. My thesis doesn't require self-made billionaires, one could be raised by a billionaire family. In sociology it's called habitus theory. In short, you pick up ways of behaving from your environment, and these ways of behaving cannot be faked by those not from the environment.
>billionaires don't run their business on their own, not even the money side of it.
Yes, you are correct, but what's interesting is that you won't see billionaires end up homeless from an economic crash. Whereas corporations declare bankruptcy all the time. I mean, if a billionaire's assets and a corporation's assets are managed by the same types of people, how is it that one is immune to imploding while the other isn't? Do you have an answer to that beyond "billionaires know what they're doing"?
>They are just a layer of parasites added on top of whatever already runs our economy.
What is this "whatever"?
>That's because it is a state-capitalist country firmly embedded into the capitalist world economy.
>You are not stating anything new here. Economic crises usually increase the wealth of the very rich and decrease the wealth of the poor. This has been known for a long time and it is precisely this contradiction of capitalism, the increasing monopolization, that socialists must take advantage of in the future.
So the CPC isn't actually "in control".
>The solution is not to fetishize billionaires which is what you are doing for whatever reason. Please read more books before embarrassing yourself again, and I mean this with no malice in my heart. You seem like an alright guy otherwise.
I've no idea what you mean by fetishizing billionaires. Also please point me to a Marxist book for running an economy.
>>658559
>What about billionaires that won lotteries?
It is excellent you bring this up because it has become a sort of cliché that lottery winners end up miserable and lose all their money. Which lends credence to my thesis that billionaires are doing magic. Wealth management is so "obvious" that most people who invest in stocks, end up losing money!

>>659363
basically the sk model vvas a mixed dirigsme economy where gov burecrats worked alongside private buisnessman to do economic planning

>>659369
but personally im against it because the private buisnessme n end up becoming ultra powerful to the point they take over the state

and then reforms start happening to make it freemarket aka its unsustaniable

>We defeat the ruling class and what then?
We learn how to do it ourselves. It would involve plenty of stumbling in the dark and fucking up but there's no other way if we don't want to be ruled over forever.

>>659363
>The Soviet Union has, in fact, had recessions
What do you think is worse about recessions, line going down or millions of people losing their jobs and livelihood? Because USSR's "recessions" didn't have latter.

>That is why they're able to game it.
It's a chicken or the egg phenomenon. Do they know how the economy works and game it, or does the economy work (for them) and nobody else because they game it? They essentially polarize the economy to serve only them like a parasite that takes over its host's brain.

LOL at thinking that Bill Gates amassed his fortune by being some sort of genius visionary

>Have filthy rich parents that can afford to send you to a fancy private school that offers extravagant computer classes
>Start computer software business with massive capital investment in 70s microcomputers fully paid for by parents
>Write and sell some mediocre BASIC interpreters
>Massive tech monopoly IBM is looking to enter the microcomputer space
>Filthy rich mother sits on several corporate boards, suggests her son's company to IBM executives
>After BASIC deal, IBM asks Gates if his company can program the operating system
>Gates says yes, despite having no capability to do so
>Goes to another company and buys out QDOS (literally "quick and dirty operating system") to flip to IBM
>IBM PC becomes the dominant computer architecture solely by its association with the IBM monopoly, Gates gets a cut of every computer sale
>Microsoft becomes a monopoly itself and crushes all upstart competitors through a strategy that Gates privately called "Embrace, Extend, Exterminate"

Ray Dalio should be every Marxist's favorite billionaire since he became one by just analyzing material conditions.

>>658348
>We defeat the ruling class and what then?
Put all those planners on the party leadership.

Capitalists have no material understanding of even their industry thus why the global supply chain is in gridlock. Jeff Bezos and those directly under him knows far less about logistics then Napoleon and his officers. Capitalists think they just can exploit workers harder to increase throughput ignoring the entire supply line is mess with infrastructure built in the wrong location because capitalists can't plan for shit.

Anyone can "game" the economy if they own property. Just sit on your ass and wait for the assets to appreciate while everyone else works.

>>659402
Your picrel is taking that quote massively out of context, stop consuming boomer memes

>>659513
I don't believe the Bill Gates eugenics conspiracy, I just searched for "evil Bill Gates" and thought the image was amusing

>>658348
>I unironically think billionaires are the only people on Earth who know how the economy actually works.
No they only know their particular area, they know how to game one particular part of the system, but they haven't a clue how it works as a hole. The people that do have greater understanding don't get rich because they see that it can't work and are busy trying to change it.

>While billionaires do their magic
exploiting the workers isn't magic, we know how they do that, it's just that we don't want to do as they do because it's not viable in the long term.

> Wealth management
doesn't teach you about economics in a way that it is usable for running production.

>Whether the economy crashes or not it has no effect on them, so why would they prevent it?
If the economy crashes it just means the people running the economy suck at it. You're hemorrhaging copium by saying "it's not a bug it's a feature." Billionaires don't have any credibility or authority when it comes to running an economy, just look how shit the economy is under their watch.

>We defeat the ruling class and what then?
We implement cybernetic socialism, duh !

>As history has shown. It's not that central planning doesn't work, it's that economic policy dictated by people who don't know how an economy works, doesn't work.
Historically planned economies worked, capitalists economies are the ones that keep crashing. Look at Russia before and after they dissolved the central planning system.

>And what of Xi's China you may ask? Yeah, what about it?
Chinese communists kinda have proven that Marxism is the more correct economic theory by beating the capitalists at their own game.

>You'd be a fool to think it is not vulnerable to economic crashes like every country on Earth.
Yeah yeah china has been collapsing any minute now, for the last 30 years.

>Much like billionaires everywhere else, the billionaires of Xi's China are unaffected by them.
Lol the billionaire that ran Evergrand real estate into the ground is paying for it, in china billionaires really don't float above their fuck-ups.

>Sure the CPC could execute billionaires. What would that accomplish?
Sometimes billionaires do get executed in china, usually when they committed really heinous crimes.

"We defeat the ruling class and what then?".
Why do you think anybody needs these billionaires ?
All they have proven is that they are greedier than everybody else, and have less scruples about harming other people, that's not a quality you want for leadership.

>>659369
>>659372
that's why you have to have a strong state that will bonk the head of any businessman that tries to start shit

>>659751
>that's why you have to have a strong state that will bonk the head of any businessman that tries to start shit
<That's why you have to have a state shaped by the capitalist economy it operates in the confines of to regulate said capitalist economy
<That's why you have to have a strong state of businessmen to bonk the head of businessmen
The fact that you fags see no issue with that should be concerning.

>>658348
>I unironically think billionaires are the only people on Earth who know how the economy actually works. That is why they're able to game it.
They just know whom to bribe lol

>>659797
why do you think "us fags" see no issue with that? there are issues, of course there are, but "us fags" don't see any alternatives presenting themselves. if you start talking about anarchist communes i'll bonk you on the head.

>>658348
Congratulations, OP, you've reached the banal conclusion that engaging with concrete reality is better than vacuous philosophizing from the ivory tower. You exaggerate their economic and financial sense, however. Keep in mind billionaires, including old money, defer the majority of their wealth management to educated specialists; most, if not all of them, would give you a less accurate metric for their own wealth than the financial advisers and asset managers they hired would.

>>659797
and by the way, nobody said anything about "a state of businessmen"
the businessmen would be the equivalent of middle managers in a walmart - valuable employees but employees all the same and ultimately replaceable. actually, the goal of such development would be exactly the development of business managers that are loyal to the party/state and not solely to the bottom line, who will then replace the previous ones.

>>659751
mate that was literally the south korean state in action. park chung hee was a military man that did everything like even have a vault of information that could jail buisnessman, and forbidding buisnessmen from entering politics or having private banks.

He did everything to control the buisnessmen but in the long term the private companies became so huge the state couldnt control them anymore after 1980s

>mate that was literally the south korean state in action. park chung hee was a military man that did everything like even have a vault of information that could jail buisnessman, and forbidding buisnessmen from entering politics or having private banks.

uh vvhat i meant to say is

mate that was literally the south korean state
in action. park chung hee was a military man that did everything to control the private buissnesmen like by having a vault of information that could jail buisnessman, forbidding buisnessmen from entering politics and banning buisnessmen from ovvning private banks.

>>659822
but after park died the private buisness became too big to control and activitely resisted the states control after 1980s

and then after that began south koreas neo liberal era :/

>>659823
>but after park died the private buisness became too big to control and activitely resisted the states control after 1980s
that's where the "development of business managers that are loyal to the party/state and not solely to the bottom line" comes in, purge the current ones and install your own
on the other hand i'm a loser posting on a barely known internet posting place, what do i know about this shit

>>659825
I mean mate thats the thing park did that too, he purged a lot of the disloyal buisness ovvners to the point that a lot of the old disloyal chaebols lost their top 10 spots and instead a nevv nationalistic loyal chaebol came in and took over those spots

and besides that a lot of these nevv loyalist chaebol ovvners vvere personally evaluated by park and accepted due to their loyality to parks vision so uh

yeah

The bourgeois government has no other job than tax policy on trade and capital and income. Also billionaires are billionaires because they can politically maneuver to protect their billions and maintain those billions leaving the regular folk to pay the state tax burden. China just has a very strong leash on billionaires whereas in the west there is no leash. Understand? It's a political issue, not an issue of economics or economic management. That's what Marx was getting at, that workers can manage the economy just fine without the existence of millionaires or billionaires existing. It's a question of political power.

>>659828

vvhat vvould you classify the park chung hee gov to be?

bourgeois or non burgeois

>>659402
>>659513
NO ITS TRUE!

Bill Gate's mRNA mutinogenic experimental injections are killing BILLIONS

Reject the Mark of the Beast! Accept JESUS CHRIST as your Lord and Savior and wake up to Gate's SATANISM!

>>659839
>Bill Gate's mRNA mutinogenic experimental injections are killing BILLIONS
Sounds like the plot of a House of the Dead game

>>658348
absolutely retarded analysis, most lucked out on working on the right tech at the right time and using basic monopoly tactics.

The US already had a billionaire in charge how did that work out?

>>667475
Trump is a glorified landlord

>>659962
>absolutely retarded analysis, most lucked out on working on the right tech at the right time and using basic monopoly tactics.
Op is just trying to manufacture consent for billionaires (which is understood as privatized dictators) by saying "hey guys we're competent evil". But on some level everybody knows that they're just crooks, nobody gets that wealthy by being honest, not even by bourgeois standards. They can only pick one, either have billions or have acceptance. It's not possible to think they're competent, the world they helped shape is too dysfunctional.

>>667910
>the world they helped shape is too dysfunctional.
Why would it be any other way? Are you an ancap? Do you think roads not used by rich people would be built by rich people in a hypothetical ancap world?

>>658348
How about…actually placing the means of production under working class control. You know, socialism.

t. post feudal serf

>>668006
>Why would it be any other way?
Dysfunctional world = incompetent people are in power.
>Are you an ancap?
No
>Do you think roads not used by rich people would be built by rich people
Oh i get it, but in a functional analysis, maliciousness is a type of incompetence.
Look at it from the perspective of having a functioning world, people with power have to make the right decisions to keep it functioning. Selfish rich people just count as a defect in the decision making process, just like incompetence. I don't see a reason to make a distinction, unless you want to make moral judgements. Even in a broad structural analysis dedicated to systemic tendencies, there still would not be a difference between promoting maliciousness vs promoting incompetence.

>>668042
But I actually disagree that billionaires in the first place are "making" the world dysfunctional. Even in the context of what you're talking about, imperial powers are the ones "making" the world dysfunctional not Mr. Gates or whoever else. And I don't mean just covertly through imperialism and such, I mean also covertly… By failing to see that they will crumble under their own weight, if capitalism continues.

>>668322
*And I don't mean just overtly