new capitalism vs communism thread

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Azazel
The majority of it lies with the other people buying him Printers.

What's wrong with that?

EDIT: and Savadoc, what the hell does that have to do with this thread?

[Tripledoc]

The tax reforms?

[Az]

This may be the mother of all disagreements. I think we should strive for providing the best possible living conditions, a "soft" concept that includes economic well-being, actual comfort, but also the opportunities of living a fulfilling life. To this end, an emphasis on the exonomic efficiency is needed, but I don't think it should be the be all end all of the system.

Utility isn't economic utility, it's ethical utility: providing people with the best lives possible. So we aren't disagreeing, really.

Quote:

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).

Nothing to oppose about this. However, laws should be made to avoid press monopolies, and to defend the right of even small factions to get political expression. It is a personal beef of mine these days, but a society isn't satisfyingly democratic if only one or two opinions get widely covered, while all the others are ignored by the mainstream media.

You're completly right.

Quote:

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.

Excellent. However, I think the ban on the means of productions (like the affirmation of essential freedoms) should be possible to change with a very difficult process, such as the unanimity in the Parliament, or a 90% referendum. This means, if the model does not work, it lets room for it to change without a bloody revolution.

Of course, that's exactly what I meant. VERY difficult, but possible.

Quote:

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

This is the main question I'm asking myself. Would the economy be better off in a system with competition (albeit skewed), or will it be more efficient in a planned system?
I would think planification would be good for any general-interest industry, but other industries (especially consumer goods) should be left open to the initative of individuals or individual companies, thus allowing some trial and error. If the individual / the company wins the jackpot, good for them.

You only have that to ensure choice. I am not saying that there should be only one company making stuff. I only thing that it should be planned as well. I think that people who invent new consumer goods of real utility must be awarded, but this doesn't have to be through the start my own company mechanism.

And regarding advertizing. To warn people about the existence of a new product is the legitimate reason of advertizing. Anything else is manipulative crap.

*bows*

Quote:

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.

This is actually identical to my views of a democratic system within the company.
If I may add, I thhink the company should be a place where the "one person one vote" axiom doesn't hold. Here's the reason: I think various categories of employees should be significantly represented. I mean, even categories with limited staff should get heard, since a company is the interaction between all its departments. It would be stupid to let any vital component of the company getting ignored for lack of political weight.
As such, I'd advocate more a "senate" in the company (where the amount of 'senators' is not exactly proportional to the demographics), rather than an "assembly". I don't mean that every category should be equally represented, but I indeed mean that labor-unintensive categories would have some significant say at the expense of the uber-say of the labor-intensive categories. As such, one vote will be less worth than one another, exactly as the current systems of Senate around the world.

Way too complicated. I think that my system avoids this complication and allows a voice to the workers, and to the representatives of the general public.

Quote:

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.

I oppose any forbiddance of the strike rights. Should the judiciary be wrong in one of its rulings, the employees should be able to defend themselves. Besides, we have already seen many "democratic" countries ruthlessly punish strikes, and I don't want my beautiful socialism to be spoiled in blood again

You come out of the pov that the workers are always right. sadly, this is not the case. The fact that they are workers doesn't turn them into infallible saints.

I agree with a judiciary settlement of the disagreements, but it will be extremely tricky to have a set of laws that could allow to judge fairly.

It's more fair than have any of the other ways.

Quote:

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.

Same critic as Che. It is extremely important to make the chief bureaucrat accountable. Maybe not directly to the people, but clearly to the representatives.

Besides, I have always been annoyed at the idea a technocrat is at the helm, rather than a politician. Even though most politicians are crap, the role of a politician is to provide a vision, an overall aim for the society. Such is not the role of a technocrat: he is supposed to make sure the daily stuff gets managed as effciently as possible.
I'd much prefer having a politician or a group of politicians in charge, with a system that allows them to have the time to develop a vision: grunt work to be discharge on lesser Politicians, the "higher ones" bearing no responsibility in the daily management and well being of the society (that would be another elected branch of government), the severance of partisan ties upon entering this status, etc. So that they could do a politician's job, i.e to submit a cohesive project to the society, which will then accept it or not.

If it will be accountible to politicians, He wouldn't be in a position to audit their actions. Don't be fooled: He's NOT the leader of the government. He's just correcting errors. And this guy will be wise and fair.

Quote:

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.

You know I am cold to the idea of technocratic societies. Besides, I think genetic engineering should be left for the people to decide (it is after all little relevant for a socialist model).

It was a little addition by me. This just means that those in charge will have to be well educated.

As to the law being strictly upheld, we need to make sure the law reflect the wishes of the population, hence a really accountable democratic system must be devised. Otherwise, we'd be "strictly upholding" laws as idiotic as the ban on Music Downloading is today.

of course. But without big record corpration, you won't have a problem with this.

[Kuciwalker]

A few questions for those who support democratic companies:

First, who decides the wages? The people doing the work, or people somewhere up in the chain (possibly even the legislature)?

Second, can the decisions of the workers be overridden? What if they decide to just play Civ all day?

Third, should the military be similarly democratic?

Finally, in light of the third question, since the military is an organization that serves the state (and through it, the people), and since all of those other companies are organizations that serve the state (and people), why should the military have any different rules from the rest of them? Why should the rest of the companies have any different rules than the military? (Oh, and how would emergency services like firefighters and policement work, if there were different rules for companies and the military - like the military or like a company?)

[Az]

Ideally, there is no military, since the government encompasses the entire world.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by skywalker
First, who decides the wages? The people doing the work, or people somewhere up in the chain (possibly even the legislature)?

In a despotic rule it is the CEO who decides. In an objective marxist analysis the wages are decided by the amount of work being put into the products sold.

[Kuciwalker]

That's a good point but if you're claiming that communism would only work in a politically unified world...

What about in an unideal situation - hey, you asked me about foreign policy wrt imports from non-scmooist countries

EDIT: re Azazel, and you didn't answer my other questions

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


In a despotic rule it is the CEO who decides. In an objective marxist analysis the wages are decided by the amount of work being put into the products sold.

so if I am incredibly talented and put X effort into my work, producing 200 shoes, I get paid as much as someone who puts the same effort into their work but only manages to produce 100 shoes? So you are PUNISHING people with talent?

[Tripledoc]

What is shmooist economy? I looked it up and apparently a shmoo is a cartoon animal which only lives to please others and which can be transformed into any product.

Is that how you understand it?

[Kuciwalker]

schmooist is the term I'm using to describe my capitalist system, to keep che from bombarding me with crap about OTHER capitalist systems.

[Az]

Originally posted by skywalker
That's a good point but if you're claiming that communism would only work in a politically unified world...

What about in an unideal situation - hey, you asked me about foreign policy wrt imports from non-scmooist countries

Yes, I did. No, in the military, the decisions would not be democratic by their nature. The military won't be compulsory. Neither this will be the case for regular corporations: I am not an syndicalist.

EDIT: re Azazel, and you didn't answer my other questions

As I said, I am not an syndicalist.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by skywalker


so if I am incredibly talented and put X effort into my work, producing 200 shoes, I get paid as much as someone who puts the same effort into their work but only manages to produce 100 shoes? So you are PUNISHING people with talent?

MAybe, but where does this 'talent' come from? Are you saying that you work harder, well then you get more.
This was called 'storming' in the Soviet System.
Maybe you have bought a machine which makes the production more efficient, but that machine will have to paid off to the one who produced it, at the value of the amount of work put into it.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Azazel
Yes, I did. No, in the military, the decisions would not be democratic by their nature. The military won't be compulsory. Neither this will be the case for regular corporations: I am not an syndicalist.

Ok then, I want Spiffor to answer because you have already seen some of the light

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


MAybe, but where does this 'talent' come from? Are you saying that you work harder, well then you get more.
This was called 'storming' in the Soviet System.
Maybe you have bought a machine which makes the production more efficient, but that machine will have to paid off to the one who produced it, at the value of the amount of work put into it.

Look at it another way: I'm a programmer. I am a VERY TALENTED programmer and I, using X effort, write 20,000 lines of code. Someone much less talented than I uses the same amount of effort to write 5,000 lines of code. Neither of us used a machine, and both of us used exactly the same "effort".

[Tripledoc]

Unless you define each line of code as a seperate product of course.

[Az]

Originally posted by skywalker


Ok then, I want Spiffor to answer because you have already seen some of the light

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Cuba, compared to any other Caribbean country except perhaps Barbados, has the highest standard of living. The USSr had a very hugh standard of living in comparison with Tsarist Russia (which is what we can compare it to, IMHO).
Many people in capitalist countries such as Haiti, Ivory Coast or Bangadesh would call these "prosperous". There are poor capitalist countries you know. Actually, plenty of them.


Continue to live in your happy little world, where the citizens of the Soviet Union or East Germany were barely survivng. Continue to live in your happy little world where Cubans don't get health benefits. Continue to live in your happy little world, where capitalism has brought such immense benefits to the people of Africa, of southern Asia, that are infinitely more prosperous than their East-European counterparts... Yes, please continue.

But please don't call your happy little world the "truth".

My God, Spiffor, when you have to compare Cuba to the poorest of the the poor to show that they are prosperous you are really digging your own grave. What is true is that the per capita GNP of Cuba is less than 1/10 of what it was in 1959.

If we want to get into defining what the word "prosperous" means, perhaps we can reach some common ground. Your usage of the word is dramatically different from my usage of the word. You seem to think that providing subsistence living is prosperous so long as a person has access to health care however wretched. You think that Europeans living in small cramped apartments for which they have to wait years to get permission to rent, and standing in long lines every day to get food is prosperous so long as they have access to health care for free.

Spiffor, for a socialist, poverty is prosperity so long as you have access to free Healthcare.

Communism, and socialism, are both lies.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned
What is true is that the per capita GNP of Cuba is less than 1/10 of what it was in 1959.

I sincerely doubt that. However, that does not matter, since GNP is a Capitalist invention. For instance, in the US two thirds of GNP is pure consumption, while only one third is production. I would take it that a large part of Cuban GNP at that time was pure consumption and pleasure, Casinoes for instance. Thus GNP says nothing of long term sustainability. You need to Look at the HDI instead. The Human Development Index.

[Ned]

Tripledoc, you support my point that when we use words like "prosperous," we use them differently depending on one's political orientation.

Thus, when I contend that socialism leads to poor but equal and you contend that socialism leads to prosperous and equal, we are both right when we understand how we use the terms "poor" and "prosperous."

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned
Tripledoc, you support my point that when we use words like "prosperous," we use them differently depending on one's political orientation.

I agree that there is a fundamental difference in philosophy, yes.

Clearly it is a problem for the Communist to explain how Capitalism, or the mixed economy really, is capable of making two thirds of its population share in prosperity on relatively equal terms, while one third is left in the dark.

Equally it is difficult for the Capitalist to explain why it does take a 'mixed economy' to ensure that two thirds get acces to prosperity - one would assume that the Capitalist would consider it feasible that with pure capitalism all will have equal share of prosperity, no?

[joncha]

Originally posted by Azazel
Ideally, there is no military, since the government encompasses the entire world.

This is true, but it's also the easy answer.

Before there is communism globally, a military would be necessary, if only to defend it from the likes of Ned and his army of zombie trolls.

A communist military must be democratic. Those who are asked by society to fight and die for it must be willing, active participants. Officers are elected to lead on the battlefield. Military plans and strategies are drawn up by officers and voted on by the soldiers.

And before anyone jumps all over me to say how "unrealistic" this is, it's how the Red Army was actually run (and run successfully) under Trotsky.

jon.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Ned
Tripledoc, you support my point that when we use words like "prosperous," we use them differently depending on one's political orientation.

Thus, when I contend that socialism leads to poor but equal and you contend that socialism leads to prosperous and equal, we are both right when we understand how we use the terms "poor" and "prosperous."

I actually agree. What have you done with Ned?

Originally posted by Ned
Communism, and socialism, are both lies.

I even agree (to an extent) with this. It was a lie, all those "communist" countries and "socialist paradises" weren't communist or socialist at all.

jon.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Tripledoc

I sincerely doubt that. However, that does not matter, since GNP is a Capitalist invention. For instance, in the US two thirds of GNP is pure consumption, while only one third is production. I would take it that a large part of Cuban GNP at that time was pure consumption and pleasure, Casinoes for instance. Thus GNP says nothing of long term sustainability. You need to Look at the HDI instead. The Human Development Index.

Unfortunately, there are no comparisons as the UN didn't bother doing a HDI on Cuba until 1996.

http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/indicator/indic_10_1_1.html

However, in 2001 Cuba ranked 52nd with an HDI score of 0.806, behind Costa Rica (42, .832), Poland (35, .841), and, of course, the capitalist and semi-capitalist countries of the West.

Here's the HDI on Cuba itself: http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/indicator/cty_f_CUB.html

And the US: http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/indicato...cty_f_USA.html

Note that there are no poverty statistics for Cuba, making a Cuba/US comparison irrelevant.

[Ned]

Under the Christian view, differences in wealth are not "evil" so long as the poor have enough to live on. Thus, I, and may other Republicans, actually support social welfare programs to the extent that they do not unduly impair the economy. We believe also, that a rising tide raises all boats. Clearly, the larger the economy (per capita) the greater the ability to afford social welfare programs.

Under the Socialist view, differences in wealth are inherently evil. Socialists enforce equality regardless of the costs to economic performance. Thus to total economic performace of socialist economies is less than capitalist economies. This necessarily leads to a per capita income substantially less than capitalist countries (as in Cuba or Russia), but at least there are no evil rich people around.

[Sandman]

Cuba suffers under an economic embargo, so that has to be taken into acount as well. If America lifted the embargo and opened a dialogue with Cuba, they'd be capitalist within a decade.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by joncha
And before anyone jumps all over me to say how "unrealistic" this is, it's how the Red Army was actually run (and run successfully) under Trotsky.

Do you know of any books or links which explain how Trotsky led his men?

[Pax]

The question is whether Cuba was better off in 1959 or now. or if Cuba would be better off now had there not been a change of power.

We know that enough Cubans were unhappy with the system of Cuba being a de facto colony of the U.S. that they revolted.

I think everyone will agree that Cuba is more stable now than in 1959.

Everyone also agrees that Castro government is responsible for many human rights violation and etc. but is it worst than the government that came before it. I think that it is better than the Batista regime. Castro himself was a political prisoner at one point.

For all the years before 1959, Capitalism and Democracy U.S. style had been bad for Cuba. I think that the policies of the U.S. towards Cuba can be faulted just as much as the Cuban government for any ills in the Cuban society. The U.S. has basically engaged in economic warfare with Cuba. In the 1800's we demanded that Japan trade with us because trade is crucial to a nations survival. In the 40's, Japan attacked us because we had refused to trade with them.
Had the Cubans not been exploited so heavily prior to 1959 would be more prosperous.

I think a system that pulls more people above the poverty line is more important than a system that increases the wealth of a few so much that the average wealth goes up but the actual amount of poor people does not. Which system meets that goal?

Is there anywhere we can see comparisons of past and present HDI?

[Ned]

We all know why Communists need large armies, even if they have no enemies.

[Pax]

Ned,
Would you agree that Capitalism is responsible for the Colonization of America, Africa, Australia, European rule of most of the world, All the major wars of the 1-21st century.
These things I consider more evil than communism or socialism.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned
Socialists enforce equality regardless of the costs to economic performance.

Equally Capitalistism enforces 'freedom' at the cost of economic performance.

See the earlier post on Bush's Tax Plans for 2005, which IMHO is not economically efficient.

I think that even the most ardent capitalist will not deny that both China and Russia made enormous strides in economic perfomance, and they had to contend with regular invasions and civil unrest at the same time.

This was mainly due to the fact that the consumption was kept at a minimum, while investment in capital was prioritized. This was done at a horrible price, but it did prevent both nations from being destroyed by the Imperialist powers.