new capitalism vs communism thread

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
How is the US "true capitalism"?

It isn't laissez-faire, but I'd say the US pretty much fits the bill for capitalist.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I don't feel like writing a paper right now, but here are the big ideas:

1. My understanding of communism is different from other CPOA members. What I say is my idea of communism, not every commie's.

That's fine - I'm not asking for someone else's

2. 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.

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).

4. Some would advocate a "pure" socialist system, that can also be depicted as "anarcho-syndicalist": every company is held by its employees, and there is no overall economic authority to monitor all that. I oppose such a view that I deem extremistic.

5. Politics plays an important role in a socialist society. The State should have a strong (if not absolute) directional power in the affairs of general-interest companies. The State should also create economic opportunities for independent companies to use them, and it should avoid resources to be wasted by the private (yet worker-owned) part of the economy.
As a defender of the common interest and major supplier of resources, the State is very important in my model.

6. It is extremely important that the State is democratic. I'd pick a democratic capitalism over a despotic communism any day. Since communism or socialism is about giving the power back to the people, such a project is doomed to failure if any concession is made with authoritarianism.

7. Personal rights would be protected. People can own watches, fridges, cars, homes. But they can't own production means. The exception to that are monopersonal companies: they should be as free as one can get.

8. I don't believe in "to each according to his needs". A strictly flat income is the bast way to encourage sloth. OTOH, any sensible socialist State will not only reduce income disparities (since the workers in power will not accept their bosses getting millions while they earn a few dimes), but it should also have a strong safety net. But the extent of the safety net would be dictated by the will of the people.

That's pretty good, but I'm hoping to see the specifics of something like this - if we're going to argue, we have to have something to argue over

[Kuciwalker]

The ultimate goal of this exercise is of course to examine the actual mechanisms of communism to see if they would work (read: prove them wrong ) - capitalism is much easier to describe, because it's a self-organising system. Communism, however, requires state control over industry, which requires some specific mechanism.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by skywalker
The ultimate goal of this exercise is of course to examine the actual mechanisms of communism to see if they would work (read: prove them wrong ) - capitalism is much easier to describe, because it's a self-organising system. Communism, however, requires state control over industry, which requires some specific mechanism.

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.

[DaShi]

Has anyone ignorantly suggested that communism is an economic theory as if to imply that any discussion of it in relation to government is irrelevant yet?

[Sava]

my cat's breath smells like cat food

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Spam the opiate of the masses.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
That's pretty good, but I'm hoping to see the specifics of something like this - if we're going to argue, we have to have something to argue over

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.

[Whaleboy]

Capitalism!!!

[Tripledoc]

There is no contradiction between Capitalism and Communism. The process form Capitalism towards Communism is an historical process decided by the inherent contadictions in Capitalism.

In former treasury secretay Paul O'Neils recollection Alan Greenspan is at one point noted as having said:

"Capitalism is not working! There has been a corrupting of the system of capitalism."*

So if the director of the central bank says this, does it mean it is true? No, but it does suggest a perception of true crisis at the highest level.

Clearly the United States has had the worlds most succesful capitalist system the world has ever seen. However this succes has perhaps in large parts been brought about by external features not through inherent strenghts in the Capitalist system itself.

Notably the absense of any strong labor movement, the dominance in international finance, the near monopolization of the worlds exchange currency, the willingness of other nations to cover the US trade deficits. The willingness of weaker nations to open their markets for privatization, also known as globalization.

In Europe it is clear that Capitalism is not working at all. Growth is painfully slow. Real unemployment is around 25 percent. Resource scarcity, pollution, unemployment, demographic shifts, oversatiated markets and more have meants that the State has had to take over more and more control. Should the state take over the means of production this would have insignificant impact on the economy, except it might mean less corruption scandals. (Parmalat for instance)

*The Price of Loyalty:
George W. Bush, the White House,
and the Education of Paul O'Neill, page 226

[Spiffor]

Tripledoc:
Don't forget one thing, the people behind the overthrowing of capitalism are very important. If there are no people willing to devote their lives to the overthrowing of capitalism, it will remain in place.
Also, the opinions of the overthrowers are extremely important for the new system. The USSR and all its satellites have remained in the shadow of Lenin and Stalin until the fall. China and all its clients have remained in the shadow of Mao until turning capitalist.

I know Marx's dialectics make it sound like an obvious, mechanical transition, but it's not. History is nothing without people to advance it.

[Whaleboy]

Trip: Inclined to agree, there are elements of both in their familial interpretations, and I dare say that human economies need both.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Tripledoc:
Don't forget one thing, the people behind the overthrowing of capitalism are very important. If there are no people willing to devote their lives to the overthrowing of capitalism, it will remain in place.

If the European Commision decided today to 'nationalize' ('europeanize?') all industries would you even lift one eyebrow?

The revolution needs an avantgarde, no?

[Sava]

"Capitalism is not working! There has been a corrupting of the system of capitalism."*

poor Alan...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
If the European Commision decided today to 'nationalize' ('europeanize?') all industries would you even lift one eyebrow?

Of course! I would cheer like crazy!

[Sava]

Of course! I would cheer like crazy!

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Of course! I would cheer like crazy!

So would we....

[GePap]

Sky_ get of your butt and read some communist thinkers!

[chequita guevara]

*cg settles down to read this thread. "sigh"

[chequita guevara]

joncha articulates my vision of a post-capitalist society pretty well. Can't see any changes I would make in his description except to elaborate.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by joncha
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.

I disagree. The history in Europe in the last 20-30 years has shown a move away from party participation. The new 'socialist' restructuring has meant the creation of the socalled Third Way, as seen under Schroeder in Germany and Blair in Great Britain. But this is really just televised Populism. Under the surface they still pay their dues to the monopolistic big industries, and in the case of Blair he has through the Devolution process given way to local nationalist movements in Scotland and Wales.

The Third Way is as such both exclusive, since it gives way to nationalism, and not truly participatory, since it relies on Populism, defined along the parameters that various spin doctors lay down.

This must mean that the Third Way is reactionary, but democratic of course, and pro-monopoly, yet unwilling to take the last step towards nationalisation.

This means that the people are too easily swayed by the impact of propaganda - pro monopoly and pro-nationalist.

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.

As explained above democracy is not the way to push through a real change in society. Hence I think that a move forwards will come from a supranationalist and anti-monoply force. The European Union, of course. The European union is not democratic. In some ways it is a cathedocracy, that is a rule by scholars. In other words it is the avantgarde. It is a combination which involves the political aims of a politbureau and the means of a Napoleonic commisar rule.

It is not a dictatorship. It is formed by apointees of the various national entities that make up the union. They are able through their directives to push for further socialization by means which are closed to the dead democratic processes of each individual nation.

And still it is moving towards some semblance of democratic order. the European Commision reports that they are getting a flood of letters and complaints from citizens, laborers actually. These citizens feel that ther voices are not heard by the local governments - these governments are of course more inclined to placate the local industries.

Conclusively, in a modern complex society the idea that the masses are capable of mobilizing themselves is pure fantasy.

On a side note it is interesting that it is precisely the truly democratic institutions, US Congress and the European Commision and Parliament which are currently being targeted by assassins.

[Spiffor]

Joncha: I mostly agree with you, but there is one point I wish to discuss

Originally posted by joncha
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.

This is the system I'd ideally advocate. I am a lifelong supporter of direct / participative / top-down democracy. However, after having studied participative democracy, and experiencing democracy myself by being a candidate, I have moderated my views.

Ideally, participative democracy is the best by far. It is clearly the form of democracy that is closest to the wishes of the people, and it is the most accountable form as well.
But the problem is that participative democracy is very demanding. Because everybody is a politician, everybody has to do the job of a politician. And that's huge.
I interned with a Member of the European Parliament. We were a team of two assistants + the MEP, yet the three of us couldn't have the time to:
A) get enough information on what was put to vote. It was impossible for us to have an opinion on each and every amendment or text put to vote, let alone have an informed opinion.
B) Write serious amendment proposals or whole projects. It eats up very much time as well, to make a text actually appliable.
C) manage all the PR aspect of the politician job. It's not enough to have ideas, you need to get them listened to.

My point is that three full time jobs couldn't handle the amount of work of one politician. To imagine a system where no such full-time jobs exist would be extremely taxing for the ordinary citizen. To the point it would be impossible. There is a need of representative institutions taking care, at least, of all trivial matters, and taking care of designing policy projects. The people should keep its say for important matters, when it is actually interesting.

Besides, we CPoA members are highly politized. We are very much interested in politics, and we could produce an opinion on pretty much any issue, from the maximum allowed fat-concetration in chocolate to the precise amount of subsidies going to Computer-safety systems. But the average Joe is definitely not willing to bother on each and every issue and their dog.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
I disagree. The history in Europe in the last 20-30 years has shown a move away from party participation.

The main reason to that is that political parties suck, none has the courage to use the power a political majority has at disposal. There is no willingness to turn the tide, and as such, political parties only offer marginal differences on how to manage the "unchangeable" conditions.

[Az]

Warning: the following views do not echo the views of my fellow party members.

Though I have many disagreements with them, I think it would be unfair to criticize them before actually presenting my pov, my model.

Some 'axioms': in this model, we're striving for utility.


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).

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 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.

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.

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.

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.


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.


I'll appreciate comments.

[Arrian]

But the problem is that participative democracy is very demanding.

BINGO. This is a problem for all democracies, regardless of the economic system. How many hours of your life will each individual really dedicate to their civic duty?

Why do you think the American electorate is so poorly informed and less than half (who could be registered voters) vote? THEY CAN'T BE ARSED. I suspect it's similar in Europe, though note quite as bad.

How do you overcome that? It's a question for everyone, not just communists.

-Arrian

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Arrian
How do you overcome that? It's a question for everyone, not just communists.

IMHO, the main reason as to why they can't be arsed, is that there is very little actual stake in an election. At least until recently, when governmental left and governmental right were so close on many issues.
And even today in the US, a person that is not interested with abortion or gay marriage will have virtually no reason to choose between candidates that are mostly identical except on these issues.

One of the reasons there is less abstention in Europe than in the US is that anti-system parties (revolutionary parties and far right parties) are viable, and drain an electorate that would otherwise abstain. But even then, many rightly believe politics won't change anything.
We need clearly differentiated parties, and we need parties who feel they can use the political power at full potential. I.e, not letting non-political entities (bureacuracies, corporations) have more say than them.

[Az]

You mean, like a real heated debate over the nature of society, and the way it's shaped?

[Imran Siddiqui]

My point is that three full time jobs couldn't handle the amount of work of one politician. To imagine a system where no such full-time jobs exist would be extremely taxing for the ordinary citizen. To the point it would be impossible.

Yep... if everyone had to do the work, what would end up happening is that they would delegate their voting and thinking to a party appartus who would do the work and tell people what to vote and think. So participatory democracy really would gravitate to something similar as today's Proportional Represenation systems.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Azazel
You mean, like a real heated debate over the nature of society, and the way it's shaped?

That sure would help political participation. However, such a debate alone won't solve the whole problem, because a great many people will feel the society we live in is perfectly fine already.

So, the differences in parties should not only reflect a deep societal stance, but also other more trivial things, but with great importance for some of us. Immigration, transportation, welfare, worker's rights, shareholder's rights, domestic and international security, etc etc. Parties need to be clear cut on these issues as well, and to be accountable. If they are "catcha all" parties who say basically the same in order to attract the fluid electorate, we'll go nowhere.

Also, something very important is that the winner should have the means to implement his policy, and the next winner should have the means to implement other policies. As such, if Bush gets elected and bans gay marriage, the next liberal at the helm should be able to allow it (that was for the little issue of the day). As long as politicians are all talk, and all same talk on top of that, many voters won't be arsed to vote for them.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yep... if everyone had to do the work, what would end up happening is that they would delegate their voting and thinking to a party appartus who would do the work and tell people what to vote and think.

This is what happens in Parliaments. Because of the MEP's lack of awareness for each issue, we basically trusted the party's opinion, and voted like the party. Except for the few issues my MEP took keen interest in (such as immigration and discrimination - I worked for one of the very few black MEPs )