new capitalism vs communism thread

[Odin]

I am at heart a communist, but my path in getting to the stage of anarchy and "to each according to his abillity, to each according to his need" is more in the syndicalist blood. Basically, I think the corporation should be abolished and replaced by a system of co-ops. I don't think ideal Communism can exist until we are technologically advanced enough that consumer goods have practically no monetary value, we will be that productive (talk to Che or Kid if you want more info, I'm not much into economic theory ). That is why capitalism doesn't work; innovations cause job losses so people get stuck in low-paying McJobs.

Now if Neddy and a few others would quit sticking thier head in the sand we could have a much better discussion!

Sky, like some of your ideas, even though I don't agree with a lot of them. I wish Ned and Fez among others would quit giving you good capitalist guys a bad name.

[Spiffor]

Since your critique is very long, I decided to take each point at a time.

Originally posted by Tripledoc
.................................................. ........................................
2.(Spiffors points are numbered) I advocate more a socialist economy with democratic institutions, rather than the idea of communism as advocated by Marx. I do not believe in any form of invisible hand, and Marx's communism does rely on it.
.................................................. ........................................
A critique of Democracy must neccesarily start with a short presentation of Toqueville's writings. In the chapter'Singular facilities for the establishment of despotism' he presents the following case.

Modern Democracy is characterized by, an 'innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures which with they glut their lives' And each one of these citizens live in a closed world by his lonely self.

Ruling over these men is, 'an immense and tutelary power which takes upon itself to secure their gratifications...' The final goal is to. 'keep them in perpetual childhood'. They are reduced to 'nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.'

This is the first thing with which I disagree with Tocqueville. This has to do with his dubious methodology, that makes him more of a BAM than a political analyst.
A democracy that is strictly about electing a constitutional despot every now and then has a good chance to produce the results Tocqueville is describing. However, a democracy that empowers the people in taking the most important decisions (while leaving the pettier ones to an elected political class), as well as a democracy that protects the opportunities of expression for most parties, is one where people get to know about the issues at hand, and where they have a choice.

The 'people combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty'.In other words, the people elect leaders and grant them immense powers to subdue them, while the leaders are themselves subdued by power of the electorate. This can only lead ever downwards.

I do not understand what you mean by "going downwards". Do you mean such system is doomed to demagogery? To inefficiency? To lack of responsivity? How and why does such a fall happen?

He then goes on and concludes that,'To create a representation of the people in every centralized country is, therefore, to diminish the evil that extreme centraliztion may produce, but not get rid of it'. Meaning that while Democracy is the lesser of all evils, the evil resides unless, either representation is discarded for something else, or centralization is broken. So why not seek an avenue of approach which seeks to overturn
both representation and centralization?

In the point you are discussing, I was emphasizing that my system needs a form of authority, of coordination, because I do not believe in a system that coordinates itself spontaneously (invisible hand). This is the reason why I think classical economists and their ilk (from Smith to Laffer and beyond) are full of crap, and that's also the reason why I don't believe in the ideal classless / stateless society depicted by Marx. Such a presentation of belief was the very point of this section, not the description of the democracy I envision.

Now, if you want to discuss the democratic system itself I advocate, it has an extent of representation for practical matters (namely, to decide on the great many petty issues, whose resolution would be infinitely too demanding for people who are not making this their full-time job). But the most important issues would be decided by referendum, as prepared by the representatives, or grassroots petitioners.
A judiciary would check if these initiatives are comaptible with the existing fundamental and mundane laws, it would then correct the legal mistakes (before the vote) if any.

I think competences should be devoted to different layers of power. Cities should have their own competences, large districts should have their own competences, nations should have their own competences, supranational institutions should have their own competences. As such, centralization and decentralization are complementary, not incompatible.

For example, cities would be the best layer of power for sewage (I can't help but write "sexage" ), local transportation, daily convenience infrastructure in general, as well as the geographic evolution of the city (i.e where to build that new factory, etc.)
OTOH, the supranational level would be the best layer for supranational issues, such as global economic / financial concerns, harmonising the rules, security issues, overall economic orientation, etc.

If we now consider what extreme representation and extreme centralization will lead to, the prospects are not good, to put it mildly. The people will through their clamoring give power to those who are most capable of satisfying their ublu material needs. In an age when
imperialism is succumbing to the law of diminishing returns, when the people can be moved through massive propaganda, when politicians feel little or no responsibility towards such basic things as truth and honesty, handing the immense powers of centralization of a socialized state run economy to elected officials will inevitably lead to a most vicious and suicidal kind of fascism.

Capitalist democratic societies have lived through 60 years of both extreme centralization and extreme representation without falling into fascism yet (except the US of course, but fascism is the nature of the American people ). And I fail to understand your logic: what has the handling of economy to do with reaching fascism or not?
And again, I'm no firend of representative democracy, but a purely direct democracy is simply impractical, for the reasons I stated there.

The most basic avenues of solutions to the problem is therefore to 1) empower each citizen in the productive process in order that he gets a real feel for what it takes to produce what is consumed.

This is exactly what I suggested in later points, to make companies democratic and accountable to their workers. The very reason as to why I think companies should be run democratically is precisely to empower the people.

2) this empowerment will only happen when the most basic reason that wealth and subsequently power accumulates in the hands of the few is removed. That reason is the upholding of private property of all kinds.

Of all kinds? Why? You can reach the same objective with the only removal of private properties of the production means, simply because wealth gets created and thus accumulated by production means. There is no need to remove private property. The removal of personal property, as opposed to property of production means, is extremely impractical, and simply sucks. I, no more than anybody, don't want to lose items I took for granted simply because some bureaucrat said so (or even simply because some mob says so). Income is very different to actual property in this regard (or savings), because income is money that hasn't been used yet to acquire belongings, hence infinitely less frustration factor.
There's no way I come back home after a day at work only to find my house and my bed occupied by some unknown people

3) As stated present day democracy has degenerated into a wild scuffle for those who promise most goods at the least expense to the citizen. A solution to this requires some pondering on the issue.

I think the hybrid suggestion I'm hinting to is the best available, making the idea of direct democracy compatible with practicability.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The laws of the country, as democratically decided by the people at large, are superior to a company's regulation. Much like the internal regulation of a company in today's developed capitalist societies have to be compatible with the Law.

Ok, I've got it clear. That works (though you realize, of course, that this allows the higher level of the hierarchy to effectively regulate the company as much as happens in America today - they'd just have to legislate it ).

This is a technical question. But in general, I think we should trust the elected people to jusge what's a "calmer mission" or not. Many military elites strongly dislike the odea of having their authority discussed by base soldiers, and they'll continuingly pretend theey are in an emergency situation even when it's objectively not the case. For example, a peackeeping mission with very low MIA account could easily be deemed a "calmer mission" by the democratic institutions.

Quote:

I understand that they have leeway - my question is, is this leeway mandated by the constitution or allowed by the government? It seems to me that the company, because it is serving the people, would have to be accountable to them, otherwise it could do whatever the hell it wanted (even if it was given "objectives").

What I meant is that the company has leeway, but the frame is 1) respecting the Law and 2) respecting the objectives. Basically, the leeway is about how work i organized, how to manage the available resources, etc.

Point taken. I think the State (I wouldn't say the "president", since you can imagine a power-structure that isn't presidential à la the US; besides "the "State" is in charge of preparing the law and executing it, unlike the only person of the president) should be giving objectives, and taking measures if they are not reached. It should give objectives to any public service as well.

The main difference between Azael's model and mine is that mine doesn't define what are "public services" or not. To Azazel, the State should give objectives to any given sector in the industry. I am still undecided to the extent of planification of the economy (but I'm a strong partisan of free one-person companies, unlike Az)

dammit, I'm agreeing too much with you my thoughts here are just that this system would grow too inefficient due to lack of competition.

[Kuciwalker]

Spiffor and Azazel: what if someone managed to construct a "means of production"? Would that person be allowed to own it? Also, aren't computers incredibly poweful "means of production"'s? Would people be allowed to own computers?

[Kuciwalker]

Oh, and Spiffor, you say you don't believe in an "invisible hand" - do you mean you don't believe in market forces? You don't believe capitalism is a self-organizing system?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
3. The main point behind a socialist economy is that the workers are the ones who have power in the company, NOT the shareholder. Basically, it means companies become democratic instead of despotic.
Now, you can have more or less efficient company institutions, differing according to each company's situation (mostly the size).
.................................................. .........................................
In a communist economy there is no place for private property, which must neccesarily leave the shareholder out of the picture. There is no solution in now letting the workers become the capitalists by default by letting them take over the power of the production. A democratization of the factory plant will only mean that the same processes explained in the Toquevillian critique of Democracy will now take place on the sub-level.

I thought you opposed the combo of democracy + centralization? The very point of democratic companies ("sub-level") is to decentralize the decision making.

Furthermore that kind of worker Democracy will neccesarily be subserviant to the national Democracy, or finally the supranational Democracy.

Yes, in the meaning that company democracy won't be able to disrespect national / supranational law. And objectives, if the economy is planned (which is an issue about which I'm undecided yet)

In this case how is it then to be avoided that the worker will not by his own accord see the benefit in working harder to satisfy not only his own needs and that of his family(which is communism)

I may have not understood something, but I thought you were precisely opposed in rewarding those who work harder at the expense of slackers: "Thus people who work more should not be rewarded" (your critique to my point 8).
And I fail to see why democratic companies go against individualized wages. If most people have a good work ethics, they will demand individualized wages rewarding the most productive workers.

but see an impulse to work for the socalled 'greater good'. This creates oversupply

WRT oversupply, I don't see the difference between motivating people to work hard for themselves + family, or to work hard for the greater good. Both motivations (if working) will bring more production, and thus "oversupply" as you put it - as long as you agree with the premise that more production = oversupply, with which I disagree.
Besides, my system is precisely about making a balanced socialist system despite mankind being fundamentally egoistic. I.e, I don't think the "greater good" will motivate anybody but a few very socially active people.

and this again sparks imperialism as the search for new markets is now prioritized.

I disagree. People produce wealth as they work. Wealth production grossly equates work*productivity. Now, there are plenty things that wastes such wealth (bad production allocation, bad monetary allocation, etc.), but fundamentally, any work can produce wealth, that in turn can be used to buy goods and services produced by other people's work. The result of your work simply has to be useful for someone else who can afford it, and who knows about your product.

You don't have to go imperialistic to open new markets, because you are creating a market as you work more. For example, western countries don't have to go imperialistic to sell their hardware and software. TheUSSR didn't have to go imperialistic to sell its steel: it used it very extensively already.

But in order to not go imperialism, you need technological innovation, to make the creation of new markets possible once the old ones get saturated, and you need a wise allocation of resources, to avoid saturation of markets.
In the end, oversupply comes from an ill allocation of resources, not because people work too much / with a too high productivity.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
Spiffor and Azazel: what if someone managed to construct a "means of production"? Would that person be allowed to own it? Also, aren't computers incredibly poweful "means of production"'s? Would people be allowed to own computers?

A "mean of production" is basically a company, or anything that creates wealth is work is put into it. Computers are incredibly powerful means of productions, but you cannot make this website if you don't put any work into it.

I am a strong supporter of free mono-personal enterprise, simply because the "owner" and the "workers" are the very same person, so this one person should be in charge of his company's destiny.
However, as soon as this woner has employees (hence loses his status as mono-personal company), the employee should have a say in the company as well. That doesn't mean the first guy will shut up: he works as well, so he should keep his say. Chances are his visionary behaviour will make him remain the de facto patriarch of the company, at least as long as he's successful.

However, that's because I think at least a part of the economy should escape planning. I think Azazel prefers an entirely planned economy, where the ingenuous guy submits his idea to the planning bureau, and gets a reward if the idea is accepted.

[Imran Siddiqui]

innovations cause job losses so people get stuck in low-paying McJobs.

If that were true then the median income today would be less than it was in 1700. That is obviously not the case.

[The Andy-Man]

but isn't it inevitable that all sucesful mono-buissness will become larger and larger until a 6person board effectivley runs the 600man workforce? And isn't participation of suc ha large workforce, who may no f- all about runnig the whole operation, almost impossible?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
A "mean of production" is basically a company, or anything that creates wealth is work is put into it. Computers are incredibly powerful means of productions, but you cannot make this website if you don't put any work into it.

I am a strong supporter of free mono-personal enterprise, simply because the "owner" and the "workers" are the very same person, so this one person should be in charge of his company's destiny.
However, as soon as this woner has employees (hence loses his status as mono-personal company), the employee should have a say in the company as well. That doesn't mean the first guy will shut up: he works as well, so he should keep his say. Chances are his visionary behaviour will make him remain the de facto patriarch of the company, at least as long as he's successful.

However, that's because I think at least a part of the economy should escape planning. I think Azazel prefers an entirely planned economy, where the ingenuous guy submits his idea to the planning bureau, and gets a reward if the idea is accepted.

What if the workers the person hires agree to let him have control of the company, rather than make it democratic?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
Oh, and Spiffor, you say you don't believe in an "invisible hand" - do you mean you don't believe in market forces? You don't believe capitalism is a self-organizing system?

Absolutely. There is nothing mathematical, no absolute correlation between price, offer and supply (which is the main mechanics of the "market forces")
Sure, people tend to raise their prices when they see there is a huge demand, and they tend to lower their prices when they witness a low demand. However, this is a human, and hence irrational, unmathematical behaviour, unlike what the economists want us to believe.

Besides, capitalism is a self-organizing system in the meaning that companies create their regulations, objectives, organizations, products, prices etc by themselves. But there is again nothing automagical in it: those are people taking such decisions, based on a necessarily flawed information, and analyzed through a web of necessarily flawed assumptions (inherent to every individual, what we call the worldview). Hence, the result will not be the magical optimum economists dream of.

Lastly, the consumers themselves can be radically irrational. They are not strictly following the price. For example, you may want to go buy your apples to this cutie's appleshop, or you may want to go to that one supermarket because you have done so for the past 20 years.

---

That was for the validity of market forces as a strictly mathematical relation.

I also fail to see why there would be an invisible hand in orienting resources in open markets, fleeing closed markets. Sure, companies will tend to look for more sellable products, but then again, flawed information and flawed worldview will skew these results. A familly company will try to survive even though the company looks unviable, because it's part of the family's history. Big corporations may spend millions because of the boss's pet project.

And last but not least (definitely not least), big shareholders or owners may want to completely wreck a perfectly viable company in order to milk immediate profit. Such a pilfering destroyed Russia's economy after the fall of the USSR, as ambitious capitalists acquired companies in order to suck their whole capital and leave the company bloodless and dead. Such a thing happens all the time in our economies as well, when shareholders destroy profitable and viable activites to increase their short-term returns. Invisible hand? My ass, that's the visible hand of greed

[Odin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

innovations cause job losses so people get stuck in low-paying McJobs.

If that were true then the median income today would be less than it was in 1700. That is obviously not the case.

This is because the early service industries were dominated by small "Ma & Pa" stores, little small town diners, and whatever. Now it is huge corporations like McDonnalds and Wal-Mart who care more about making a "massive enough" profit to please investors than thier employees (who they treat as commodities, which is demeaning).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Absolutely. There is nothing mathematical, no absolute correlation between price, offer and supply (which is the main mechanics of the "market forces")
Sure, people tend to raise their prices when they see there is a huge demand, and they tend to lower their prices when they witness a low demand. However, this is a human, and hence irrational, unmathematical behaviour, unlike what the economists want us to believe.

Huh? Because of competition, prices will (generally) correspond roughly to the costs of production. If something costs less to produce, supply increases, and thus there will be more competition and the price will fall (as people will be able to cut prices further and still make a profit). If something costs more to produce, supply decreases, and the price goes up because people have to sell at a higher price to still make a profit. When more people are trying to buy a limited resource, it is basically an auction, and the price will go up. When fewer people are willing to buy a limited resource, the price won't be driven as high.

Besides, capitalism is a self-organizing system in the meaning that companies create their regulations, objectives, organizations, products, prices etc by themselves. But there is again nothing automagical in it: those are people taking such decisions, based on a necessarily flawed information, and analyzed through a web of necessarily flawed assumptions (inherent to every individual, what we call the worldview). Hence, the result will not be the magical optimum economists dream of.

By "self-organizing" I mean that it requires a few simple rules, and complex structures emerge. The universe is also a self-organizing system - simple interactions between fundamental particles yield enormously complex structures.

I also fail to see why there would be an invisible hand in orienting resources in open markets, fleeing closed markets. Sure, companies will tend to look for more sellable products, but then again, flawed information and flawed worldview will skew these results. A familly company will try to survive even though the company looks unviable, because it's part of the family's history. Big corporations may spend millions because of the boss's pet project.

Yes, but statistically, and in the long run, such companies will go out of business or at least become less competitive, because they are less efficient. More efficient companies will take over an increasingly large part of the market share, because they will be able to sell at lower prices and still make a profit. Generally people buy the cheapest product (assuming equal levels of quality).

And last but not least (definitely not least), big shareholders or owners may want to completely wreck a perfectly viable company in order to milk immediate profit. Such a pilfering destroyed Russia's economy after the fall of the USSR, as ambitious capitalists acquired companies in order to suck their whole capital and leave the company bloodless and dead. Such a thing happens all the time in our economies as well, when shareholders destroy profitable and viable activites to increase their short-term returns. Invisible hand? My ass, that's the visible hand of greed

And those companies that allow that will go out of business (as you stated), thus the companies that DON'T allow that gain an increasing market share.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Absolutely. There is nothing mathematical, no absolute correlation between price, offer and supply (which is the main mechanics of the "market forces")
Sure, people tend to raise their prices when they see there is a huge demand, and they tend to lower their prices when they witness a low demand. However, this is a human, and hence irrational, unmathematical behaviour, unlike what the economists want us to believe.

Besides, capitalism is a self-organizing system in the meaning that companies create their regulations, objectives, organizations, products, prices etc by themselves. But there is again nothing automagical in it: those are people taking such decisions, based on a necessarily flawed information, and analyzed through a web of necessarily flawed assumptions (inherent to every individual, what we call the worldview). Hence, the result will not be the magical optimum economists dream of.

Lastly, the consumers themselves can be radically irrational. They are not strictly following the price. For example, you may want to go buy your apples to this cutie's appleshop, or you may want to go to that one supermarket because you have done so for the past 20 years.

---

That was for the validity of market forces as a strictly mathematical relation.

I also fail to see why there would be an invisible hand in orienting resources in open markets, fleeing closed markets. Sure, companies will tend to look for more sellable products, but then again, flawed information and flawed worldview will skew these results. A familly company will try to survive even though the company looks unviable, because it's part of the family's history. Big corporations may spend millions because of the boss's pet project.

And last but not least (definitely not least), big shareholders or owners may want to completely wreck a perfectly viable company in order to milk immediate profit. Such a pilfering destroyed Russia's economy after the fall of the USSR, as ambitious capitalists acquired companies in order to suck their whole capital and leave the company bloodless and dead. Such a thing happens all the time in our economies as well, when shareholders destroy profitable and viable activites to increase their short-term returns. Invisible hand? My ass, that's the visible hand of greed

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Odin
That is why capitalism doesn't work; innovations cause job losses so people get stuck in low-paying McJobs.

Odin: innovation is certainly not happening in capitalism alone, and that's very fortunate. The Romans innovated, the Renaissance Europeans innovated, the Soviets innovated, and hopefully our grandchildrens' grandchildrens, who'll live in a far better society than capitalism, will continue to innovate.

Think about it: if it wasn't for innovation, we'd still be ploughing our fields with archaic tools. The work of one man on the fields would be barely enough to feed him, and we'd have famines just like in the middle ages.
Since the Middle ages, our agrarian population has dwindled from about 95% to less than 5%
Yet, you don't see 90% unemployement, do you?

That's because innovation has allowed people to work on other jobs. The peasants driven off their land became factory workers. The factory workers driven off their factories became office people or McJobs. Office people are becoming increasingly IT people. And maybe IT people will become "nano-people" or what do I know what awaits before us, once innovation makes fewer and fewer people needed at repetitive tasks.

The real problem with what I described is that it doesn't happen as joyfully as it seems. Many peasants have died in the city's streets as they were looking for a factory to exploit employ them. Manny factory workers were on the dole, or are still on the dole, trying to find a job in services; thay'll probably only find a MacJob in the end. Office people are getting increasingly worried by layoffs. Etc.

The problem we have to adress is how to manage a humane transition between previous jobs and next jobs. But the problem is definitely not innovation itself. Innovation is the great thing that allow us to discuss on 'Poly instead of dying while ploughing the field.

[Kuciwalker]

Spiffor - despite the fact that other groups innovated, the invention of the patent (a capitalist invention if ever there was one) allowed Western civilization to blaze ahead in technology. Thus, innovation occurs more under capitalism, because it is rewarded more.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by skywalker
Spiffor - despite the fact that other groups innovated, the invention of the patent (a capitalist invention if ever there was one) allowed Western civilization to blaze ahead in technology. Thus, innovation occurs more under capitalism, because it is rewarded more.

... Ned?

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by skywalker

dammit, I'm agreeing too much with you my thoughts here are just that this system would grow too inefficient due to lack of competition.

I am unfortunately too busy to actively participate, but still, here's for you this question: then what?

Even the highly inefficient USSR experienced economic growth. From the point a society has way enough wealth to purvey for everyone, what's the point in pursuing econ growth for the sake of it?

IMO the efficiency problem is secondary. Producing enough goods, and sustaining the rythm, should be sufficient.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Spiffor

The problem we have to adress is how to manage a humane transition between previous jobs and next jobs. But the problem is definitely not innovation itself. Innovation is the great thing that allow us to discuss on 'Poly instead of dying while ploughing the field.

Exactly, the problem today is that people have to work crap jobs while they reducate themselves, that is what is not humane. I think people should not need to have a job in college, it distracts from thier learning.

[Spiffor]

Huh? Because of competition, prices will (generally) correspond roughly to the costs of production.

MEEP! If such was the case, please explain me why in the nearly Schmooist US , the profit rate oscillates between 10% and 20% please (and this is with a conservative calculus, rather than the actual confrontation between the company's revenue and the costs incurred).

If something costs less to produce, supply increases, and thus there will be more competition and the price will fall (as people will be able to cut prices further and still make a profit). If something costs more to produce, supply decreases, and the price goes up because people have to sell at a higher price to still make a profit. When more people are trying to buy a limited resource, it is basically an auction, and the price will go up. When fewer people are willing to buy a limited resource, the price won't be driven as high.

I took economy classes too, and I know of the economists' rationale. But I have also discovered that the "wonder-variable" that will always predict a human behaviour doesn't exist. To us humans, there are tons of non-economic reasons not to be economically rational.
That's why a system such as the stock market (the epitome of "market forces"), being completely mathematical, is not natural. There is a strong set of rules, and the market price gets dictated by machines computing the bids and offers. Change the programming to tweak the calculation, and you'll have the exact same sheeplish behaviour from stockmarketers, despite the price not being the fabled "perfect" ones.

By "self-organizing" I mean that it requires a few simple rules, and complex structures emerge. The universe is also a self-organizing system - simple interactions between fundamental particles yield enormously complex structures.

Yep. But unlike the universe, capitalism needs a power-structure to keep the system in place. Should there be no police, no justice etc. to protect capitalism, it would get destroyed in no time by theft, pillage, etc.

Yes, but statistically, and in the long run, such companies will go out of business or at least become less competitive, because they are less efficient. More efficient companies will take over an increasingly large part of the market share, because they will be able to sell at lower prices and still make a profit. Generally people buy the cheapest product (assuming equal levels of quality).

Yep, but the "noise" make it impossible to get a perfect result. And moreover, since capitalism permanently changes (as new products enter the market, new competitors appear, others disappear, etc.), the long-term goal continuously changes. Hence, a capitalist society never reaches said "long term goal", and is in a permanent transition.
So, the long-term reasoning is pretty moot to analyze the reality of capitalism, rather than the wondeful mathematical model of the economists.

And those companies that allow that will go out of business (as you stated), thus the companies that DON'T allow that gain an increasing market share.

You seem not to understand that companies have no power whatsoever on the owners. Only current owners can decide to whom they'll transfer their shares. Besides, in the stock market, everything is anonymous.
Imagine you're the despot of your country, and you decide to nuke it for fun. Unless a revolution overthrows you, you can do as you please. The only difference in a company is that owner cannot be overthrown, because he is protected by a police and a judiciary vastly stronger than whatever force the workers and even the managers could gather.
These people have to take orders from the owner and can do nothing about it. They can see the owner taking the company's tools, the company's computers away, destroying the building, whatever, without doing anything legal about it. Such a thing happened extremely often in Russia as the new owner (profiting from a quick'n'ugly privatization) pillaged what was simply his property, leaving the workers in the crapper.
And such a thing happens very often in our societies, when the company owning a factory decides to sell a factory's capital (machines, building, terrain) for short term money, despite the factory being profitable. Thousands of lifes were wasted because of these *******s

[Pax]

Government of PAX AFRICANUS

Democratic elections-
Party System- Party must recruit X number members to run for executive office.
Parties must have stated positions that do not break basic foundation of society. Freedom Speach, human rights.

Free Press-Press must be unbiased. Candidates are not allowed to advertise when running for positions. Candidates positions will all be stated jointly in news media so that they can be compared. i.e. any speeches are debates will be open to all candidates jointly.

Parties-Parties may be Capitalistic(Pro-business), Socialist(pro=people), or whatever.

Military, Police, Intelligence cannot be democratic, must be outside of politics to avoid coups and corruption. Politicians not allowed to use military for speeches or any political gestures. Must submit to the authority of elected officials but not be used for political gain. laws set up that can cause elected officials to lose their jobs or be arrested if they violate.

Lobbyists- Lobbyists and special interests not allowed only political parties. Since parties not allowed to campaign in usual since. No need for $1000 dinners or donations except to keep organization running.

It's very important to have parties that represent the rights of all including workers, business, and religions so everyone will have representation.

legal system - Police, Lawyers should be eligible for judge. To become a judge you have give up any claim to political party and swear to uphold only the laws of the land. Similar to a religous oath or oath of fealty. But specifically not an oath to a person.

That's a start.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Quote:

Huh? Because of competition, prices will (generally) correspond roughly to the costs of production.

MEEP! If such was the case, please explain me why in the nearly Schmooist US , the profit rate oscillates between 10% and 20% please (and this is with a conservative calculus, rather than the actual confrontation between the company's revenue and the costs incurred).

I said correspond, not equal there will be a relationship, with the prices being higher.

I took economy classes too, and I know of the economists' rationale. But I have also discovered that the "wonder-variable" that will always predict a human behaviour doesn't exist. To us humans, there are tons of non-economic reasons not to be economically rational.
That's why a system such as the stock market (the epitome of "market forces"), being completely mathematical, is not natural. There is a strong set of rules, and the market price gets dictated by machines computing the bids and offers. Change the programming to tweak the calculation, and you'll have the exact same sheeplish behaviour from stockmarketers, despite the price not being the fabled "perfect" ones.

Those irrational people will be less successful and this is all statistical, not deterministic.

Yep. But unlike the universe, capitalism needs a power-structure to keep the system in place. Should there be no police, no justice etc. to protect capitalism, it would get destroyed in no time by theft, pillage, etc.

Crimes are part of schmooism - fraud and theft (besides all of the normal things like murder and rape) are illegal.

Yep, but the "noise" make it impossible to get a perfect result. And moreover, since capitalism permanently changes (as new products enter the market, new competitors appear, others disappear, etc.), the long-term goal continuously changes. Hence, a capitalist society never reaches said "long term goal", and is in a permanent transition.
So, the long-term reasoning is pretty moot to analyze the reality of capitalism, rather than the wondeful mathematical model of the economists.

So? Evolution never reaches "perfection", either - but the point is that capitalism always tends towards efficiency, in the limit.

You seem not to understand that companies have no power whatsoever on the owners. Only current owners can decide to whom they'll transfer their shares. Besides, in the stock market, everything is anonymous.
Imagine you're the despot of your country, and you decide to nuke it for fun. Unless a revolution overthrows you, you can do as you please. The only difference in a company is that owner cannot be overthrown, because he is protected by a police and a judiciary vastly stronger than whatever force the workers and even the managers could gather.
These people have to take orders from the owner and can do nothing about it. They can see the owner taking the company's tools, the company's computers away, destroying the building, whatever, without doing anything legal about it. Such a thing happened extremely often in Russia as the new owner (profiting from a quick'n'ugly privatization) pillaged what was simply his property, leaving the workers in the crapper.
And such a thing happens very often in our societies, when the company owning a factory decides to sell a factory's capital (machines, building, terrain) for short term money, despite the factory being profitable. Thousands of lifes were wasted because of these *******s

However, companies that allow that - that is, contracts that are set up in such a way that that can occur - will go out of business (in essense they will become extinct). While the problem may have to be continually solved (in the same way that sterile people keep popping up, despite the fact that they are selected against), limited regulation can bring it to a manageable level.

[Kuciwalker]

btw, what does "MEEP" mean?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
However, companies that allow that

Companies are not in power to allow that or disallow that. They are not the ones signing contracts with the owners.
To make an analogy: imagine you sell your house to somebody. This somebody turns out to be an arsonist, and he later burned the house for the thrill of it. Did the house "allow that"?
No, because the house hasn't been the master of its destiny all along. That is exactly the same for a company: the owner can pillage it, and the company can do nothing about it, and could never do a thing about it. The former owner could have done a thing about it, but now the owner is gone and happy with his money

In Schmooism, the owner has the absolute rights on his property, limited only by the law. As such, he could destroy the whole company for all he cares, much like Nero burning Rome, and there will be no consequences for him. This is the danger of letting owners having power: they can basically shut down any production unit, and wrecks tens of lives (if not thousands) on a whim.
Edit: unlike Nero however, the whim can be completely rational: that's about not taking the risk of losing money in the future (even though the company is perfectly healthy at present) when you can made shitloads of immediate money.
And the company that gets wrecked could have never done, at any point in time, anything about it. There is no contract between an owner and his company: the company is the plaything.


Oh, and I thought "MEEP" was the sound of a buzzer in English, when somebody gives the wrong answer at a TV trivia.

[Kuciwalker]

The "company" is a contract. The contract can limit the actions of the "owner". However, I don't see the problem with the owner wrecking the company anyways - surely the workers can work somewhere else?

Oh, and I thought "MEEP" was the sound of a buzzer in English, when somebody gives the wrong answer at a TV trivia.

then

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, and I thought "MEEP" was the sound of a buzzer in English, when somebody gives the wrong answer at a TV trivia.

No, that's a ZZZZT!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
The "company" is a contract. The contract can limit the actions of the "owner".

Why would the owner bother signing a contract with his plaything? Do you sign a contract with your computer? Does it have any way to defend itself if you suddenly want to whack it with a hammer?

The company is not a contract. The company is a terrain, a building, with productive machinery in it (be it computer or machine tools). And people working on this machinery. The company is a "moral person" (as opposed to a "physical person" - well, at least that's the terminology in French, but I guess it's the same in English) that signs contracts with its employees, manager included. But the owner of the company is accountable to no one but himself.
Actually, there are several legislations according to the size of a company: there are companies with unlimited responsiblity: if there is a problem, a failure to pay debts, etc, the owner will be forced to pay until the last dime from his pockets (and may have to sell his house, his clothes, or whatever). Such a legislation applies to very small companies, generally mono-personal.
Societies with limited responsiblity are basically the same principle, except that you can't rip the owner off everything he has. Such legislation applies to small, but not minuscule, companies.
Lastly, big companies are Anonymous societies, where the ownership is supposed to be divided among many people (but it's not mandatory: you may have an Anonymous Society with one person, or one "mother company" having all shares, and everybody knowing who that is). In this case, the owner is completely irresponsible. His company can have billions of debt, he'll never be worried. Useless to say, it can be very interesting to pillage a company and then let it die in a gutter with such a system.

However, I don't see the problem with the owner wrecking the company anyways - surely the workers can work somewhere else?

Tell that to the Siberians who have lost their jobs in the hand of greedy managers. Tell that to the 50-year-old workers who have spent their lives in the company, knowing no other job, and who'll never find a willing employer again. Tell that to these women for whom there is no work left in their branch. Tell that to those people who are left with zero income to feed their family, and who have to find a way to scrap some money, quickly. Tell that to people who entered depression as their world crumbled around them. Tell that to the inhabitants of the village surrounding the factory, who have lost all economic activity.

Yep, tell that to them.

It's fairly easy for the likes of you and me to find work afterwards. We are alone, we have nobody to feed but ourselves, we are young (and hence able to learn a new job), we are well educated, we have parents to shelter us while on the dole.
Those who suffer first from this kind of pillaging, however, aren't as favored as us. They have families to feed. They are usually old or middle aged, and learning is much more difficult at that age. They are poor and have very little time margin to find a new source of income. And they are often despaired because they assisted powerlessly at the destruction of a workplace they held dear.

Yeah, that's so easy to find a new job

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why would the owner bother signing a contract with his plaything?

In order to get other people investing in his company so he can make things that he can't afford at the moment. This is why companies incorporate or join in partnerships,

In this case, the owner is completely irresponsible. His company can have billions of debt, he'll never be worried.

Well when you have many owners, then he will be worried. Looting from a company can get you in hot water in most Western states.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by curtsibling
"Do you actually believe this propaganda. Stalin was personally responsible for the eradication of reactionary elements within the army and the communist party. The huge loss of life in the Soviet Union prior to the invasion by Nazi Germany and the subsequent even huger loss of life that resulted in, was not done as a willfull act, but was mainly due to poor and erratic planning"

@Spiffor:

So is there any kind of lucidity behind this quote by one of your comrades?

I am not saying you are unaware, just unrealistic.

Well if you are interested in the subject here is an article:

In Search of a
SOVIET HOLOCAUST
A 55-Year-Old Famine Feeds the Right

http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/vv.html

I would say that the claim by Ukrainian Nationalists and their rightwing co-conspirationists in the U.S, that the Ukrainian famine was man made, engineered by Stalin and resulted in 7 million dead, rests on shaky ground.

Compared with the mountain of evidence (photage, witness accounts, documents, archeological evidence, and demographic records) which proves the Nazi Holocaust, all the anti-communists have to show are falsified photos showing pictures of the Volga famine of 1921-22 which has never been claimed to be a genocide, and references to references to second hand sources.

The question is, why would anyone falsify evidence to describe such a tragedy? People did die from starvation, perhaps 2 million. However where is the evidence that it was deliberately planned by Stalin or anyone in the Communist cadres in order to suppress the ukrainian nation? Why not bring the actual evidence on the table, if there is such? Why not simply explain the famine on grounds of the civil war like conditions which were the factual conditions. The wanton slaughter of animals by the Ukrainian peasants themselves, so they would not fall into the hands of the communists.

The answer is of course that claiming that Stalin was a cold-blodded killer, means that Communism is bad, means that people are kept in fear of it, and ultimately serves the purpose of Capitalism.

If we then consider that much of the 'evidence' of the evils of communism, has been collected by Ukrainian Nazi-collaborators, and German Nazis, and initially published by virulent anti-communists like Randolph Hearst, inventer of the tabloid newspaper, a disturbing picture emerges.

[DaShi]

But the left has to concede that Stalin was evil. Otherwise, they can no longer compare him to Bush.