new capitalism vs communism thread

[Imran Siddiqui]

As such, if Bush gets elected and bans gay marriage, the next liberal at the helm should be able to allow it

Me thinks that would lead to chaos as laws change willy-nilly over things like that. Make it more difficult to change the laws and thus allow a consensus to decide what the law should be.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by monkspider


Actually, I would argue that for Communism to work, it is necessary that the state have no control over industry. But there is no need for me to tell you this, you know it as well. Communism is much easier to describe than even capitalism since it is humanity's default position, so to speak.

Actually, anarchy is humanity's default position... and anarchy is merely capitalism without restrictions on violence or fraud.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Azazel
The Bureau of oversight - The state audior: ( perhaps will rework this )
A number of wise men will be presented by the executive to the public, they all must pass the scrutiny of the judiciary. have to not participate in political life prior to that for a rather lengthy period of time.

This individual, and his staff will seek out the inefficiencies, the wrongdoings and the corruption in the government, as well as fire all non-elected officials. This will be solely under the discretion of the Auditor itself. He'll also personally hire all of his staff.

A pretty good post in general, but I disagree here. The firing of staff should be in the hands of politicians. Bureaucrats need to be accountable to the people, and not to unelected, untouchable dictators. A chief bureaucrat, in charge of all the other bureaucrats, accountable to no one, is what Stalin was.

The Bolsheviks integrated the government and the state. The people you elected were the bureaucrats. They were the people who took care of the jobs they were voting on and debating about. If we decide to create a Committee for the Restoration of the Mississippean Flood Plaines, it would be members of Congress who head up the department, and who would report back to Congress and be responsible to them.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
Actually, anarchy is humanity's default position... and anarchy is merely capitalism without restrictions on violence or fraud.

Actually, from what historical evidence we have, communism is humanity's default position. Groups share resources and make decisions in common. This is how we lived for millions of years.

Anarchy has never existed except for a few months in Spain in 1936-37. It worked well but was unbale to effectively organize to defend itself from both the Stalinists and the fascists.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I don't exactly see what you call the specifics, unless you want me to provide a constitution, a budget, a whole code of laws, every company's internal regulation, etc. Guess what: I can't. The precise organization of any system requires years of work for thousands of people. Even in today's capitalism, you have full-time jobs representatives, civil servants and managers who constantly redefine the "specifics".
I alone can certainly not imitate them. Please be more specific as to what you expect by "specifics", and I may be able to answer.

This is what I'm looking for (this is how I would describe a good capitalist system):

There is a democratic government with federal sovereignty (though some bureacracy and legislative powers are delegated to regional governments). Governing power is split into executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The legislature passes laws subject to an executive veto, while the judiciary determines whether or not those laws are in conflict with a constitutional code. Essential liberties (voting and expression) are protected, and other liberties cannot be restricted without a compelling public interest. Fraud, in addition to normal laws (like no murder, or theft, or rape), is illegal, and one can be sued for contract violation.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
Actually, anarchy is humanity's default position... and anarchy is merely capitalism without restrictions on violence or fraud.

Almost, but not quite. There is an inherent power structure in capitalism (the power fo the employer over the employees). In an anarchic society -at least the kind of one you describe-, anybody could gut the employer to pilfer his goods, making a capitalist system wholly unviable.

Don't forget capitalism relied very strongly on the police and the army during the 19th century, when it wasn't deemed as obvious as it is today. Even today, an employee that wrecks his company's hardware more or less signs his economic death warrant, as well as an hefty punishment endorsed by the law.

Capitalism can exist only if the capitalist's position of power is protected. otherwise, he has neither the legitimacy nor the power to actually rule over his employees.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
This is what I'm looking for (this is how I would describe a good capitalist system):

There is a democratic government with federal sovereignty (though some bureacracy and legislative powers are delegated to regional governments). Governing power is split into executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The legislature passes laws subject to an executive veto, while the judiciary determines whether or not those laws are in conflict with a constitutional code. Essential liberties (voting and expression) are protected, and other liberties cannot be restricted without a compelling public interest. Fraud, in addition to normal laws (like no murder, or theft, or rape), is illegal, and one can be sued for contract violation.

Well, I fail to see what a very quick descritpion of the American politico-judiciary system has to do with capitalism

Besides, I don't exactly see why you'd want the specifics of the democratic system in a communist society. These specifics change among the societies just like your description above is very far from universal. Britain has a different power structure, France has a different power structure, Germany has a different power structure, Pinochet's Chile has a different power structure, yet all of them are undoubtedly capitalist.

[Kuciwalker]

The model of government is a Federal republic with independent branches of the government, and a truly free press which is independent, just like the judiciary ( which is also independent, no politicians appointing the judges).

to the federal republic, but how can you have a free press without private enterprise? Also, the system with politicians appointing judges (for life) actually associates judges less with politics (though this has been changing recently).

The constitution is democratic and is socialist. Strikes a balance between the opinion of the majority and the rights of the minority on utilitarian principles. bans the private ownership of the means of production.

The constitution could be amended so that it is not socialist, correct?

The economy is planned, products for the consumer being proposed to test groups, and demand being watched and predicted (by similar methods to what todays companies use).

So essentially nationalizing all industries, is that what you mean?

Advertising is limited to product information, selling a lifestyle would be strictly forbidden.

Could I do this on my own (not on TV or the radio, but by putting up posters or something in my spare time)?

The companies would be run by managers who are are appointed by commitees. The commitees will consist of the workers of that particular plant, and people elected there by the parliament.

By "parliament", do you mean the federal (or regional) legislature, or are you referring to the workers? Would the federal or regional government override the decision of the workers and/or give specific orders to the manager?

Class struggle: Tricky. All issues will be settled through a labor court. Strikes are banned for the mere reason that the issue is being settled legally. If the workers are right, the management will have to abide, if not the workers will have to resume work. This actually isn't class struggle, it will be the rights of the public, vs. the rights of the minority, the workers of that particular institution.

Would I be prosecuted if I refused to work for what they were paying me? Would I be prosecuted if me and a bunch of my friends were all dissatisfied with our salary, and dissatisfied with the decision of the court?

The Bureau of oversight - The state audior: ( perhaps will rework this )
A number of wise men will be presented by the executive to the public, they all must pass the scrutiny of the judiciary. have to not participate in political life prior to that for a rather lengthy period of time.

Hmmm, so by exercising my freedom of expression I can be automatically denied the right to office? (oh, and this system is essentially the same as how the President appoints judges and Congress approves them.)

This individual, and his staff will seek out the inefficiencies, the wrongdoings and the corruption in the government, as well as fire all non-elected officials. This will be solely under the discretion of the Auditor itself. He'll also personally hire all of his staff.

So the executive himself doesn't have any of this authority? His only role is basically to approve legislation (I'll assume he can do that) and appoint the "Auditor"?

The Spirit of the society:

Egalitarian Technocratic. It will strive to expand our understanding of the universe, as well as our technological prowess in manipulating it. Also, will strive to make it's population happy, via genetic engineering, multiple recreational facilities, and the preservation of nature. Will have complete free thought but the laws will be strictly upheld.

How can you dictate the "spirit" of the society? Doesn't society determine that on its own? It seems to be impossible, unless you remove freedom of expression, and even then a dubious prospect.

I'll appreciate comments.

You're welcome

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Well, I fail to see what a very quick descritpion of the American politico-judiciary system has to do with capitalism

Besides, I don't exactly see why you'd want the specifics of the democratic system in a communist society. These specifics change among the societies just like your description above is very far from universal. Britain has a different power structure, France has a different power structure, Germany has a different power structure, Pinochet's Chile has a different power structure, yet all of them are undoubtedly capitalist.

Most of that was detailing how it is democratic the important part is that only fraud (and normal crimes) is illegal and you can be sued for contract violation.

[Az]

A pretty good post in general, but I disagree here. The firing of staff should be in the hands of politicians. Bureaucrats need to be accountable to the people, and not to unelected, untouchable dictators. A chief bureaucrat, in charge of all the other bureaucrats, accountable to no one, is what Stalin was.

The Bolsheviks integrated the government and the state. The people you elected were the bureaucrats. They were the people who took care of the jobs they were voting on and debating about. If we decide to create a Committee for the Restoration of the Mississippean Flood Plaines, it would be members of Congress who head up the department, and who would report back to Congress and be responsible to them.

This was actually a very tricky balance for me to contemplate; You see, from the experience here, in Israel, such a person is chosen by a commitee, and has always been a venerable individual, able to fully pinpoint all the ailments of the bureaucracy, and the state-owned companies. I mean ALWAYS. Problem is, his reports are never election issues. During an election, the people cannot make a choice on that. I couldn't make it a judicial issue, since there is often incompetence, and not criminal intent, plus, the judicial is already has too much power.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Almost, but not quite. There is an inherent power structure in capitalism (the power fo the employer over the employees). In an anarchic society -at least the kind of one you describe-, anybody could gut the employer to pilfer his goods, making a capitalist system wholly unviable.

1) no, there's no "employer" or "employee" in capitalism - merely a buyer and a seller. Labor is a commodity like any other

2) I never said it was capitalism, I said it was capitalism sans restrictions on fraud and the use of violence. Enormous difference

Don't forget capitalism relied very strongly on the police and the army during the 19th century, when it wasn't deemed as obvious as it is today. Even today, an employee that wrecks his company's hardware more or less signs his economic death warrant, as well as an hefty punishment endorsed by the law.

And an employer who starts beating his employees gets arrested.

Capitalism can exist only if the capitalist's position of power is protected. otherwise, he has neither the legitimacy nor the power to actually rule over his employees.

Huh? You mean capitalism can only exist if the employees aren't allowed to steal?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Actually, from what historical evidence we have, communism is humanity's default position. Groups share resources and make decisions in common. This is how we lived for millions of years.

Anarchy has never existed except for a few months in Spain in 1936-37. It worked well but was unbale to effectively organize to defend itself from both the Stalinists and the fascists.

Anarchy by definition can't organize - there is no government. Anarchy is by definition the default human state - a government does not automatically exist, people create it.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
And an employer who starts beating his employees gets arrested.

You don't have to beat your employee when you can yell at him as much as you want, give him the worst tasks as much as you want, and fire him at will. The only pressure the employee can exert is to leave the company (which was btw forbidden for a long time during the 19th century), or use physical force.

Huh? You mean capitalism can only exist if the employees aren't allowed to steal?

Yes, but also that an employee or several of them aren't allowed to take over the company without the agreement of the capitalist (which is a pretty rare occurence).

In a socialist system, there need to be an enforcement for the rules as well, this is not the point. I'm opposing capitalism and anarchy: capitalism, at its core, needs rules and enforcement of these rules. A rulless society has no chance to be capitalistic. OTOH, a capitalist society is very compatible with authoritarianism.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
Anarchy is by definition the default human state - a government does not automatically exist, people create it.

This is slightly a disagrement of terms, but Marx's description of the evolution of human society is widely accepted in sociology, anthropology, and archeology. He's so important he can't be ignored, even if you disagree with him.

Communism = anarchism except when you are discussing politics. Communists and anarchists want the same end goal, the destruction of private property and the state. We want a society governed communally and democratically, where no one wants for necessities. We disagree over methods and the need for an intermediate step, socialism.

The main disagreement is over your thinking anarchism = capitalism - rules, which has not been true. Property did not exist for 99% of humanities existence and decisions were generally made by the whole group, rather than by individuals.

[Az]

Problem is, as society grows, naturally the problems facing it are becoming much more multifaced. I surely agree that the average citizen must be more educated and more knowledgeable of what's going on, but that doesn't mean that all decisions must be taken together. That's bloody impractical.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
You don't have to beat your employee when you can yell at him as much as you want, give him the worst tasks as much as you want, and fire him at will. The only pressure the employee can exert is to leave the company (which was btw forbidden for a long time during the 19th century), or use physical force.

The worst pressure the employer can exert is fire the employee - the employee can yell all he wants, too, he just has to face the consequences (as does the employer). Also, if an employee cannot leave at will, then the system isn't capitalism (unless the employee has a contractual agreement, in which case the employee can be sued for leaving, or at least not paid).

Yes, but also that an employee or several of them aren't allowed to take over the company without the agreement of the capitalist (which is a pretty rare occurence).

"Taking over the company" would be theft - the company is owned by the manager (or by those that appoint him).

In a socialist system, there need to be an enforcement for the rules as well, this is not the point. I'm opposing capitalism and anarchy: capitalism, at its core, needs rules and enforcement of these rules. A rulless society has no chance to be capitalistic. OTOH, a capitalist society is very compatible with authoritarianism.

No it isn't - capitalism cannot exist without both essential liberties, the right to property, and the right to contract.

[Kuciwalker]

Communism = anarchism except when you are discussing politics. Communists and anarchists want the same end goal, the destruction of private property and the state. We want a society governed communally and democratically, where no one wants for necessities. We disagree over methods and the need for an intermediate step, socialism.

How can you have a government without a state? If you have no government, then you cannot enforce anything, especially communism. Communism would have to be entirely voluntary...

The main disagreement is over your thinking anarchism = capitalism - rules, which has not been true. Property did not exist for 99% of humanities existence and decisions were generally made by the whole group, rather than by individuals.

The right to property is a rule

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
No it isn't - capitalism cannot exist without both essential liberties, the right to property, and the right to contract.

Sure it can. Capitalism was quite profitable in Nazi Germany.

[Az]

NOOOOOOO this is sure to send this debate into the wrong direction. Why, che, why?!

[Kuciwalker]

Huh? Without the right to property, contract, and expression, it isn't capitalism.

[Az]

And I say capitalism is the colour of Orange juice.

You don't have to have those rights for capitalism.

[Kuciwalker]

So you don't have be able to own stuff to have capitalism? You don't have to be able to make contracts with people to have capitalism? You don't have to be able to express yourself to have capitalism?

I'm going to end this by defining capitalism, when used in this thread, to refer to specifically a system in which expression, property and contract are protected rights.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
How can you have a government without a state?

[q]

Easy, no police, no army, no IRS, etc. Tasks are carried out by elected officials and members of the government.

If you have no government, then you cannot enforce anything, especially communism. Communism would have to be entirely voluntary...

Now you're catching on.

The right to property is a rule

A rule of what? Humanity? Natch. Property has only existed for a mere ten thousand years of our history. For most of human history, poperty did not exist.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
Huh? Without the right to property, contract, and expression, it isn't capitalism.

I wonder what the right to expression has to do with capitalism

And capitalism is defined by the fact the capitalist (the owner of prodcution means) gets the profits of said production means, and has the power on how to use them. Such a thing happened very much in nazi Germany. For the capitalists, nazi Germany was even better than the Weimar Republic, as it protected them from pesky strikes and wage demands. Them employees were put in their place, and them capitalists did rake mucho profit from their production means.

[Az]

But that would be flawed, skywalker. Capitalism is an economical system that supports private property of industry and commerce of the country, and aims at maximizing profit. A system that generates capital via private enterprise and investment.

[Kuciwalker]

Easy, no police, no army, no IRS, etc. Tasks are carried out by elected officials and members of the government.

You have to collect taxes to pay the officials. You have to have police to enforce the decisions of the government. You have to have an army if there are foreign nations (though I guess you wouldn't need one if the world was politically unified, but you wouldn't need one under capitalism either).

A rule of what? Humanity? Natch. Property has only existed for a mere ten thousand years of our history. For most of human history, poperty did not exist.

It's a rule as in a LAW, stupid. Like "not killing people" is a rule. I never claimed it had existed throughout human history; in fact, I asserted the OPPOSITE BY CLAIMING THAT IT WAS A RULE!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
I'm going to end this by defining capitalism,

Capitalism defined itself long before Libertarians were fussing about what was and wasn't capitalism. It was not invented. It came into existance unconsciously, then people began to try and understand what it was that was going on. Then, two hundred years later, people began trying to say what was or wasn't capitalism. You can't redefine it after the act.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I wonder what the right to expression has to do with capitalism

If you have no right to expression, you can't advertise stuff or anything (though the government could allow it provisionally).

And capitalism is defined by the fact the capitalist (the owner of prodcution means) gets the profits of said production means, and has the power on how to use them. Such a thing happened very much in nazi Germany. For the capitalists, nazi Germany was even better than the Weimar Republic, as it protected them from pesky strikes and wage demands. Them employees were put in their place, and them capitalists did rake mucho profit from their production means.

Under your definition, the USSR was capitalist - the "capitalist" (the government) got to use the means of production. Communism would be capitalist - the proletariat owns the means of production, and recieves the benefits of said production means. And if the workers can't strike, it ISN'T CAPITALISM. That's just totalitarian.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
It's a rule as in a LAW, stupid. Like "not killing people" is a rule.

Sorry, misunderstood you.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Capitalism defined itself long before Libertarians were fussing about what was and wasn't capitalism. It was not invented. It came into existance unconsciously, then people began to try and understand what it was that was going on. Then, two hundred years later, people began trying to say what was or wasn't capitalism. You can't redefine it after the act.

I'll call it "schmooism" then. Happy?