new capitalism vs communism thread

[monkspider]

The answer to how a Communist-esque society works is common sense, and needs no explanation. Anyone curious will easily find the answer.

[Harry Tuttle]

Ow, ow, my eyes hurt. To...much...spam...

Anyways, I'l make the argument that capitalism works because it fosters ownership. Ownership helps to extend a person's understanding of self through the ability to give away and receive compensation for things created. By being able to own what you have created you can extend greater control over your ideas and your identity.

In Communism, the idea of "self" is second banana to the idea of "everyone". Ownership in Communism is essentially left up to the state where control is given to the whole instead of the one.

We can all agree that the key to self motivation is the ability to control ones own production, whether it be ownership dibs on a new Civ3 unit you created, or your idea on a new flavored ice cream. If your Civ3 unit or ice cream flavor was taken away from your control and made to belong to the whole, I bet you'd stop creating Civ3 units or ice cream flavors as would not receive anything in return. The ability to personally own and control are the biggest assets capitalism has, and that is why it's framework has worked so well.

Ok, that's my hypothesis.

[chequita guevara]

*cg peeks, runs away screaming "AUGH!!!!!"

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by yavoon
will u trade w/ the more efficient capitalist pig dogs?

Depends if it hurts or benefits the country of course. Capitalism isn't doomed to be more efficient, if the socialistic economy is done in a responsible fashion. A strong country emphasizing on education and infrastructure can get better quality products than capitalist pigdogs running sweatshops.

[Sandman]

I'm not really a communist, but it seriously annoys me that governments are so unwilling to nationalise certain industries.

There's nothing wrong with state-owned businesses. They're a useful tool in certain circumstances, and we shouldn't be afraid to use them. Unfortunately, there's a whole array of institutions lined up to prevent successful nationalised industries from ever getting off the ground; the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank and the EU.

It would be nice if there was an international organisation that helped countries build up and maintain publicly-owned utilities, to counteract the overwhelming (and misguided) urge to privatise everything in sight.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

How do you do this? Most of the companies in the world are owned by their workers (ie, sole proprietorships, partnerships). There are only few, relatively, which are in the corporate form, and that is because of the economies of scale for certain industries (ie, you'd need corporations to make computers).

And what happens when these companies lose money during down times and the shareholder/workers refuse to fire anyone? Is the economy doomed to massive depression every decade or so?

[Harry Tuttle]

light! no the light! HISSSSSSSS......

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Depends if it hurts or benefits the country of course. Capitalism isn't doomed to be more efficient, if the socialistic economy is done in a responsible fashion. A strong country emphasizing on education and infrastructure can get better quality products than capitalist pigdogs running sweatshops.

yes because capitalist countries don't emphasize education? hrrrm.

America spends a larger % of its GDP on education than any other nation. and I read a recent article on how envious european universities are of the money american ones have.

[Arrian]

Damnit, I looked again.

to Spiffor, for actually presenting something resembling a plan.

And, since his plan specifically requires democracy, I heartily approve. I'm still skeptical about the viability of such a society, but hey, if it doesn't work the people can democratically switch back to a more capitalistic system.

-Arrian

p.s. Speaking of screaming in horror, my girlfriend has country playing downstairs and I can hear it.

THE HORROR!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
How do you do this? Most of the companies in the world are owned by their workers (ie, sole proprietorships, partnerships). There are only few, relatively, which are in the corporate form, and that is because of the economies of scale for certain industries (ie, you'd need corporations to make computers).

The arrival to power is another topic, and the most tricky one. Many commies believe a new system can only be founded through revolution, but I don't (revolution bears the seeds of authoritarianism I despise). My personal take would be to have a progressive policy taxing income from capital, while having the law force increasing representativity of the employees in the Company's Council (how do you call that in English?).
The end result would be to make shareholding utterly unattractive, while the employee's representativeness crawls up to 100%, leaving no room to shareholders in the decision process.

And what happens when these companies lose money during down times and the shareholder/workers refuse to fire anyone? Is the economy doomed to massive depression every decade or so?

How do democratic countries do? A democratic system in the company doesn't mean there will be no managers, no people trained for the job to look for concrete solutions. It merely means that they'll have to be accountable to the employees (which includes themselves btw), rather than to shareholders. During hard times, the employees may be willing to accept sacrifical plans. And during good times, they may be willing to accept wage increases

[monkspider]

I applaud Comrade Spiffor for his well thought out model, but true communism requires no government at all, and I am not sure he would disagree.

[Arrian]

No government at all.



I think that's the "invisible hand" Spiff says he doesn't buy into, MS.

-Arrian

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by monkspider
I applaud Comrade Spiffor for his well thought out model, but true communism requires no government at all, and I am not sure he would disagree.

Well, I stated I don't believe in "true" communism, because I don't believe in any form of invisible hand. As soon as there is no invisible hand, the State is needed.

So, basically, I either disagree with you or with true communism (but disagreement is perfectly normal in the CPoA; we're not a monolith )

[Imran Siddiqui]

Speaking of screaming in horror, my girlfriend has country playing downstairs and I can hear it.

We are taking over .

My personal take would be to have a progressive policy taxing income from capital, while having the law force increasing representativity of the employees in the Company's Council (how do you call that in English?).

Board of Directors. And the problems are, of course, that unless you control the whole world, corporations can escape and leave your people.

It merely means that they'll have to be accountable to the employees (which includes themselves btw), rather than to shareholders.

IMO, that is a recipe for inefficiency (focusing on worker's profit instead of company profit). I think it is much less likely that worker owned corps will make the sacrificial plans which are needed. Of course I could be wrong .

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
IMO, that is a recipe for inefficiency (focusing on worker's profit instead of company profit).

Also, be aware that focusing on shareholder's prot doesn't mean focusing on company profit as well. It would be best if there was a fathomable way to systematically favor company profit, but it simply isn't the case. In many cases, shareholders have no interest in their company's long term survival, and are only interested in immediate returns. I trust the employees, who spend hours at work each day to be more responsible about their company than ivory tower shareholders.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Also, be aware that focusing on shareholder's prot doesn't mean focusing on company profit as well. It would be best if there was a fathomable way to systematically favor company profit, but it simply isn't the case. In many cases, shareholders have no interest in their company's long term survival, and are only interested in immediate returns. I trust the employees, who spend hours at work each day to be more responsible about their company than ivory tower shareholders.

I don't. Shareholders profit is more akin to company profit. Shareholders are the one who want to see the company make as much money in the long run as possible (seeing as most of them own the company for the long run). They also have better knowledge of what would benefit the company in the long run.

Dealing with workers in my job, I would utterly frightened if they ran businesses. They would be much more 'now' orientated than shareholders

[joncha]

Spiffor

You very much echoes my own ideas. For communism to work, society has to be more democratic, not less. Some more thoughts:

1) Democracy should be from the ground up, not from the top down. People decide democratically how to run their workplaces, communities, schools, etc. and delegate up to the local, city-wide, regional, national (and international!) levels. This kind of democracy is active and participatory, not just voting once every 4 or 5 years for who the next constitutional dictator will be.

2) State ownership is not socialism. If the state is not run directly and democratically by the people, it doesn't matter what it does or calls itself. It just ain't the real deal. You might get lucky and have a nice dictator in charge of things, but that still doesn't make it communist.

3) As Spiffor points out, there's a big difference between personal property and private property. Further to that, some things are better owned by individuals, some things are better owned collectively. For example, individual toothbrushes? Individual lawnmowers?

4) Everyone should be gauranteed the minimum food, shelter, etc. necessary to live. Anything less is criminal.

However, because this is to be a democratic society, it's up to the people living in it to decide its directions. I have a lot of opinions on how I think it should look, but I'm willing to allow the public to make those decisions.

Now... how we get to a point where they actually can, that's another debate. Right now, there are people who benefit from the way society is set up... and many more who don't, but identify with capitalism against their own self interests--that's the whole point of the "American Dream."

jon.

(edited to fix vB code weirdness)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Individual lawnmowers?

What's wrong with owning a lawnmower?

[joncha]

You use your lawnmower, what, once a week? once every two weeks? For an hour tops. And only when the weather is good. Why not have 5-6 (the number is arbitrary) for the neighbourhood, that anyone can sign out (and thus be responsible for) and use for his/her one hour? Makes a heck of a lot more sense to me... but who knows? Maybe you'll out-vote me on the neighbourhood council?

jon.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why not have 5-6 (the number is arbitrary) for the neighbourhood, that anyone can sign out (and thus be responsible for) and use for his/her one hour?

Because I want the good riding kind and what if the other numbnuts want a push mower?

[joncha]

Then make your case for why we need one for our neighbourhood. If you get out-voted, well that's democracy.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Why not have 5-6 (the number is arbitrary) for the neighbourhood, that anyone can sign out (and thus be responsible for) and use for his/her one hour?

Because I want the good riding kind and what if the other numbnuts want a push mower?

You'll take what you're given.

Behold, the people's mower - will suffice for the needs of 10 families.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you get out-voted, well that's democracy.

Which is why democracy sucks and ain't my idea of a good time.

You'll take what you're given.

I'll just come with my goons and lord over you peasants as your King, while you are down in your 'place' . Let the revolution come... I need some fresh corpses for fertilizer

[Agathon]

What's wrong? Don't you like the people's mower? There's a picture of Lenin on the far side, since this is the Leninmower Mk XI.

[Spiffor]

Ag:
We are supposed to make communism attractive


Along the lines of
"you'll get what you're given:"

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Ag:
We are supposed to make communism attractive

Aw.... I was going to save the people's hooker for later.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I was going to save the people's hooker for later.

Go ahead.. you can have your sloppy seconds .

[Agathon]

Hey, I just saw myself on TV. Weird - there was a protest at uni and I walked past it this afternoon. I just saw the news and thought "that looks familiar" and there I am.

It isn't up to my last appearance in which I was interviewed by City TV and managed to insinuate that Bush was a liar, a cheat and a moron in 20 seconds. But still - it's real fame!!!!

I found a clip on the web.

http://www.cbc.ca/clips/mov/roussy_protest0402041.mov

I'm the fat blur in the black trenchcoat to the right about 30 seconds from the end.

So don't diss me or I'll use my fame. Well all half second of it.

Here's the frame:

[JohnT]

Originally posted by joncha
You use your lawnmower, what, once a week? once every two weeks? For an hour tops. And only when the weather is good. Why not have 5-6 (the number is arbitrary) for the neighbourhood, that anyone can sign out (and thus be responsible for) and use for his/her one hour? Makes a heck of a lot more sense to me... but who knows? Maybe you'll out-vote me on the neighbourhood council?

jon.

Didn't we already have this specific discussion before, but with Kidicious and Velociryx?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Kidicious in 5.....4......3.......2.......1


Someone please close this thread.