new capitalism vs communism thread

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ned


People are selfish, not stupid. This is my point. If everyone's money was redistributed every day, soon everyone would bring a little as he could to class. In the end, everyone would bring exactly the same small amount so that everyone would exist in the school environment just at the starvation level. (Which is what happens under socialism, btw.) Realizing this, they will eventually vote to repeal the paradigm, having learned their lesson in spades.

For the most part I agree. Except I think people are selfish and for lack of a better word short sighted (not necessarily stupid).

You'll have true beleivers of socialism that believe they are doing a greater good, yet the bulk of their movement will be from self serving bastards who only want to live off the supposed excess of others. When it gets used up, things get ugly quickly.

Also I don't necessarily beleive lessons of the past translate too well. Multi-generational lessons often are forgotten and relegated to the "old way of thinking" dust bin.

[Kuciwalker]

As I mentioned, punishment doesn't have much o a deterent effect. Most people do not engage in violence not because they are afraid o being punished, but because violence is alien to them. It is a deeply wrong thing.

How does that prove anything other than people are raised with certain ingrained values?

You think so?

See the point about war...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

What is a "corporation"? They don't exist in schmooism - there is only a buyer and a seller (or more properly, just two parties to a contract).

Corporations arise from private property. But you don't want to have them? Ok. How will big bussiness develop then? And without big bussiness, how will sophisticated goods be manufactured?

I didn't say I didn't want them, I said that they didn't exist. A "corporation" is just a particularly successful type of contract (or set of contracts). I agree to put in some money, and in return I recieve a percentage of the profits. It's basically a loan.

[Az]

Yes, and without this type of contract, modern capitalism cannot operate.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
How does that prove anything other than people are raised with certain ingrained values?

AUGH!!!!! It shows that we don't consider property rights as important as other rights!!!!!!!

Quote:

You think so?

See the point about war...

It's a lot easier for individuals to control the thought of others than you would think. Surprisingly easy, as a matter of fact. Stockholm syndrome, brainwashing, cults, etc. All it takes is a threat. But it doesn't happen that often.

[Kuciwalker]

AUGH!!!!! It shows that we don't consider property rights as important as other rights!!!!!!!

And what does that have to do with some fundamental human condition?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
I didn't say I didn't want them, I said that they didn't exist. A "corporation" is just a particularly successful type of contract (or set of contracts).

You also get limited liability. This is the big thing that makes corporations dangerous. Imagine if shareholders were responsible for coporate debts and damages?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Azazel
Yes, and without this type of contract, modern capitalism cannot operate.

Huh? The contract isn't illegal, but you can't just say "the corporations" or whatever. It is a contract like any other. Unless you show that the logic underpinning the contract (specifically, the right to contract and right to property) is invalid, then the contract is OK.

Now, I don't see what's wrong with "corporate" ownership of the media, as the alternative - only allowing government ownership of the media - effectively removes freedom of press.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You also get limited liability. This is the big thing that makes corporations dangerous. Imagine if shareholders were responsible for coporate debts and damages?

If that was part of the contract they signed - thus they agreed to that condition - then what's wrong? If they don't want to agree to that condition, they don't have to sign the contract.

[Pax]

1. What do you guys think would happen if America became a communist or socialist country tomorrow.

2. Does anyone think that Russia would have been better off if they had formed a democratic government after the Russian revolution?

3. What about all the South American and African countries that became "democratic" after independence. The most stable countries after the end of Colonialism seem to be Cuba and Vietnam. These countries also control there own resources unlike Kenya and etc..

[Az]

If that was part of the contract they signed - thus they agreed to that condition - then what's wrong? If they don't want to agree to that condition, they don't have to sign the contract.

and they wouldn't. and what would form big bussiness, the provider of the goods in a market economy, then?

Now, I don't see what's wrong with "corporate" ownership of the media, as the alternative - only allowing government ownership of the media - effectively removes freedom of press.

That's not true. That would happen only if the press would be responsible before the polticians. If you allow it freedom, like you allow the courts, you'll get fair and balanced ( ) reporting.
In the current situation, the control you're afraid of by the government, is simply mirrored by a similar control by big bussiness.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
If that was part of the contract they signed - thus they agreed to that condition - then what's wrong? If they don't want to agree to that condition, they don't have to sign the contract.

That's what corporations are, limited liability. If you had a business, you would be personally liable for all your debts and damages. With a corporation (except small corps) you are only liable for the acutal money you put in. So if the corporations, say . . . illegally pollute a water source which ends up destroying a community. The maximum that can be collected in damages is the value of the corporation. Those who were harmed can't come after the shareholders, whose property was used to do the damage.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
1. What do you guys think would happen if America became a communist or socialist country tomorrow.

The military would revolt plunging the country into civil war.

2. Does anyone think that Russia would have been better off if they had formed a democratic government after the Russian revolution?

They did form a democratic government after the revolution. The Soviets were elected by universal sufferage. It's just during the Civil War, they had to clamp down on parties that revolted. Ultimately, because of the Civil War, the revolution became distorted, allowing an alien group, the bureaucracy, to sieze power from the workers and peasants.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Well, let me re-read your troll:

Quote:

The goal of capitalism is to make everyone rich which necessarily eliminates poverty. The goal of socialism to make everyone equally poor so by definition there is no poverty.

Sorry sir, but the goal of capitalism is to make capitalists rich, certainly not the common man. Don't forget, we educated people having enough free time to discuss on this Internet board based on a video game are near the very top of the global pyramid of capitalism.
Our computers have been disigned by scientists that are well paid, but the whole prodution process, from those who extraced the minerals with which the comp is built, to those who wrote your adress on the packaging, are not precisely well paid.
The cashiers that make it possible for you to enjoy your riches with consumer goods belong to a very difficult working class. Ask Speer or Nationalist, our two resident "paupers" (which is very relative, they are filthy rich in comparison with the average Indian), if they feel they have been enriched by capitalism. Ask the Haitians who are making the Disney toys you'll buy to your children or grandchildren at Christmas, if they feel enriched by capitalism. Ask the Kenyan miners who extract the sulfur used on your matches. Ask the janitor at your office if he feels capitalism has enriched him. Ask all those people if they don't feel victim of an injustice.

Socialism is not about making everybody poor. Socialism is about making an efficient economic system that benefits everybody, rather than a select few. If there are so many people mourning socialism in former socialist countries, despite the despotic political regime, that's because these people have been plunged in poverty since capitalism. That's because there wasn't even a hint anymore of resource sharing.

So, if the above post wasn't a troll, it is incredibly misinformed.

Let's put it another way. The "effect" of capitalism is to make everyone rich, but some richer than others. The "effect" of socialism is to make everyone poor but equal.

If one then suggests that the "goals" of capitalism and socialism are to be aligned with its effects, then my post is accurated and yours is not.

The problem with your post is that is suggests that socialism can lead to prosperity when it cannot and this is so obvious as to be beyond debate. Thus it is a blatant and outrageous lie that socialists feed the ill informed in order to create a totalitarian state where the socialists rule the world.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

If that was part of the contract they signed - thus they agreed to that condition - then what's wrong? If they don't want to agree to that condition, they don't have to sign the contract.

and they wouldn't. and what would form big bussiness, the provider of the goods in a market economy, then?

huh?

Quote:

Now, I don't see what's wrong with "corporate" ownership of the media, as the alternative - only allowing government ownership of the media - effectively removes freedom of press.

That's not true. That would happen only if the press would be responsible before the polticians. If you allow it freedom, like you allow the courts, you'll get fair and balanced ( ) reporting.
In the current situation, the control you're afraid of by the government, is simply mirrored by a similar control by big bussiness.

I would let ANYONE control "media" - that is, anyone is allowed to print newspapers if they want, anyone is allowed to create news channels, etc. If the media is a branch of the government and no one else is allowed to control the "media", then there is no freedom of press, by definition.

[Az]

I would let ANYONE control "media" - that is, anyone is allowed to print newspapers if they want, anyone is allowed to create news channels, etc. If the media is a branch of the government and no one else is allowed to control the "media", then there is no freedom of press, by definition.

Individuals can make their own bullitains, or whatever, as well. And the government will not control the media. It will only ensure that noone will control the media instead.

[Kuciwalker]

If a person prints a newspaper, aren't they "controlling the media"? What if the person decides to sell the newspaper - is there anything wrong with that, so long as the person doesn't lie in his paper? What if some people decide to pay him money so he can buy more printers, in return for a share of the profits? Wouldn't that essentially be "corporate control of the media"?

[Az]

Yes, and that's why it would be banned.

[Kuciwalker]

So which step in there do you object to?

[Az]

The majority of it lies with the other people buying him Printers.

[Imran Siddiqui]

nor trying to keep each other from thinking what they will

Oh lord, someone needs to go back to world history 101.

That's what corporations are, limited liability. If you had a business, you would be personally liable for all your debts and damages. With a corporation (except small corps) you are only liable for the acutal money you put in. So if the corporations, say . . . illegally pollute a water source which ends up destroying a community. The maximum that can be collected in damages is the value of the corporation. Those who were harmed can't come after the shareholders, whose property was used to do the damage.

A. What is with this 'small corp' exception. There isn't any. Small corporations get the same limited liability as larger ones. Yes, you can 'pierce the corporate veil' if the corporation is actually being run as a personal sole propritorship, and perhaps that is what you are thinking, but that is the rule for all corporations.

B. It's a GOOD rule! Why should shareholders who only buy one share of stock in the company be able to be sued for the whole value of anything the company does, when most decisions are made by the officers and Board of Directors? According to the principles of joint and several liability, if there was no limited liability, a plaintiff could go after a shareholder with one share for the entire value of the damage. Now THAT is not fair.

[Az]

bump.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
The problem with your post is that is suggests that socialism can lead to prosperity when it cannot and this is so obvious as to be beyond debate.

Socialism can lead to prosperity. It is fact. Just look at how much the standard of living increased in the Soviet Union after the death of Stalin. Just look at how Cuba provides infinitely better services to its population than the average Caribbean shithole. No food shortage, no heath shortage, efficient healthcare system many Americans would envy if they knew about it, very quick spread of literacy... Not bad for a post-feudal country and the USA's former whore.

And these systems were (are) corrupt, inefficient systems plagued by bureacuracy and authoritarianism... Do you imagine what the results could have been if the system was in democratic hands? Where there could be feedback, and where criticizing the system was grounds to improve it, rather than to put people in prison? Cuba would have probably been the best Latin American economy by now, and the USSR wouldn't have wasted so much of its GDP on weapons, but would have rather offered more and better consumer goods (the USSR began to understand the importance of consumer goods only at about the time of Brezhnev, and it was still very low priority in the plan).

Thus it is a blatant and outrageous lie that socialists feed the ill informed in order to create a totalitarian state where the socialists rule the world.

Look at me. Look at my model of socialism I described at post #29 of this thread or so. And tell me if you seriously believe I advocate socialism because I want to be the totalitarian ruler of the world.

[Az]

Spiff, you haven't given me any feedback on my system. I think it's a better waste of time than answering Ned's troll.

[Spiffor]

You're absolutely right, sorry for that. Let me read your system again.

[Spiffor]

OK, I reread it, and there are some divergences between you and me. Here it goes

Originally posted by Azazel
Some 'axioms': in this model, we're striving for utility.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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
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.

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.

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). 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.

[joncha]

ok... I've finally had a chance to read through the whole thread (moving across the country seriously cuts down on one's web usage).

I thought I should go back to the concept of "democracy from below" that I mentioned earlier. Basically, it works like this:

Every workplace, school, community, whatever is run democratically by the people who are actually there. This is because, generally speaking, the people doing the work tend to know best how to do it. They know from direct experience what works and what doesn't.

This will also cut down on voter apathy. The same people who “can’t be arsed” to get involved politically (or even vote!) have plenty to say about what happens to their homes, workplaces, etc. Give them direct control over it, and 99% will get involved. Every week or two a meeting is held to discuss how things are going and what (if any) changes need to be made.

These councils also send a representative to local councils that are responsible for everything in a given neighbourhood. This way workplaces can be responsive (and responsible to) community needs. Representatives should be chosen frequently and be instantly recall-able by their constituents.

Local councils then delegate upwards to city-wide or regional councils, which have a similar role to the local councils, but on a larger scale. Same thing for national or international councils.

The details can be worked out at lot more, I admit. For example, for an executive committee of some kind, it might be necessary to hold a convention of representatives from all local councils on a regular basis to set policy and choose an executive body. I’m not convinced that an executive is even necessary, but it may well be.

This system of council democracy is essential what was meant by “soviet,” back when the word actually had some real meaning (ie, before the mid 1920s), but it has also had many other names and has come in many other forms. The point is that it is democratic and structured from the ground up, not from the top down.

jon.

[Ned]

No one in the West would call the median per-capita GNP of either Russia or Cuba prosperous. That statement is a joke.

What is true is what I said. The economies of socialist countries seem to stabalize somewhere just above starvation and extreme want. The reason they do this is more than obvious.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
No one in the West would call the median per-capita GNP of either Russia or Cuba prosperous. That statement is a joke.

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.

What is true is what I said. The economies of socialist countries seem to stabalize somewhere just above starvation and extreme want. The reason they do this is more than obvious.

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".

[Tripledoc]

US Tax reforms planned for 2005.

Article: A Stealth Tax on Wages

1)Health Savings Accounts
2)Three new tax-exempt savings accounts. Retirement Savings Accounts,Employer Retirement Savings Accounts,and Lifetime Savings Accounts.
3)partial privatization of Social Security

All three components of Bush's tax strategy rely on tax-advantaged private savings accounts to pay for services that formerly came from the government or employers--in this case, employee health care and retirement benefits. In all three plans, as well, individuals could pass on the assets to their heirs when they die. Taken together, these changes will allow affluent Americans to shelter hundreds of billions of dollars a year from taxation, effectively rolling back much of the progressive structure that was implemented beginning with the income tax ninety-one years ago.

I don´t understand how this will increase the productivity of the American economy, when the rich are allowed to slacken off.

Furthermore this will lead to further accumulation of privately held wealth which is basically useless and inefficient. Especially when it is so skewed in favour of the haves, to the detriment of the have-nots.

The consequences for lower-income households are ominous. "If someone inherits, say, $1 million and lives off the investment income, that won't be taxed," says Peter Orszag, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who has analyzed the three proposed savings accounts. "Yet someone who works hard and sweats it out and earns $1 million over a lifetime will pay a heavy tax burden." Or, as a Congressional committee staffer close to the debate puts it, "If only wages are taxed, that takes us back to a system where the poor are taxed and the rich escape taxation."

So the poor are supposed to work even harder to make ends meet. This is an unfair deal since it is the amount of work put into a product which defines the value of the product. This work is now being taxed further, while those who do not work are rewarded.

Even if you believe that supply and demand is what defines the price of a product, this will mean an excessive supply but a lowering in demand, leading to oversupply of products and services, but less investment in capital.

Maybe due to some magical, but as yet unexplained effect, it will lead to a 'trickle down' effect?