Babylon and on - the new capitalism/communism thread

[Velociryx]

He could work for Enron!

-=Vel=-

PS: Still can't come up with a quote, huh kid? Imagine!

[Odin]

What is wrong with syndicatism? I think it would be better than a wage-paying business because each person gets an equal share of the profit, that is the communist part, so the harder a person works the more everyone, INCLUDING the employee makes in profit; thus curing the "lousy work ethic" and "lack of an entrepeneurial spirit" problems that occur in most command economies. As I said, a Communism does not mean no free market, as long as employees contol the means of production it is a communist system.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious


People who just get depressed are different. These people get depressed because they face an identity crisis. Their entire self-esteem, which has been socially conditioned, has been shattered. They based their self-worth on their earning power. Now that that is gone they feel useless. They can not handle it emotionally so they have a mental breakdown.

You seem to have sympathy for these individuals, if their hypothetical disorder can be traced to the evils of capitalism.

Do you have similar sympathy for the far greater number of individuals whose assets you'd confiscate and whose pay you would cut to increase your across-the-board "equality?"

If you ignore purchasing power parity and hyperinflation (logistics trumps revolutionary ideology every time), "equalizing" everyone in the world economically would remove the capital from every US business, paralyze financial and inventory systems, and reduce the average American's hourly wage to somewhere around three dollars an hour. (rough back of napkin calcs). Meanwhile, since you've killed the market, you've got to create a new system of arbitrary pricing, and until you do that, people are going to be hard-pressed to eat.

So what about people who have "identity crises" and go on rampages as a result of that? Oh, you kill them for being opposed to the revolution. So much for sympathy, lol.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Odin
What is wrong with syndicatism? I think it would be better than a wage-paying business because each person gets an equal share of the profit, that is the communist part, so the harder a person works the more everyone, INCLUDING the employee makes in profit; thus curing the "lousy work ethic" and "lack of an entrepeneurial spirit" problems that occur in most command economies. As I said, a Communism does not mean no free market, as long as employees contol the means of production it is a communist system.

OR, sponges who can't be fired because their owners realize they'll get the same as the hard workers if they skate, so why put out the effort?

And what happens when a company loses money? Do the worker scum all suck it up and pay out of their pockets, or do they walk and leave the rest hanging?

[chequita guevara]

*chegitz just shakes his head at the amount of misinformed anti-communist crap in this thread.

BTW, it's syndicalism, not syndicatism.

[Az]

As long as their power is mimited, very very usefull.

Ok, so what exactly is a vibrant part of the economy?

[Velociryx]

Actually, that should prolly read: "historically informed," rather than "misinformed" but no need to split hairs....

-=Vel=-

[Imran Siddiqui]

chegitz just shakes his head at the amount of misinformed anti-communist crap in this thread.

That's nothing compared to the misinformed anti-capitalist crap that occurs in this forum .

[Odin]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
OR, sponges who can't be fired because their owners realize they'll get the same as the hard workers if they skate, so why put out the effort?

And what happens when a company loses money? Do the worker scum all suck it up and pay out of their pockets, or do they walk and leave the rest hanging?

JEEZ! I'm taking Economics in my senior year in high shcool this fall, I will work out the details later. I would be happy with anything that fulfills the requirements for a democratic workplace with the least amount of government beauacracy and it must have the inventiveness of the free market. My idea is NOT set in stone, it is a work in progress.

Thanks for the spelling correction, Che.

DOH!

[JohnT]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
*chegitz just shakes his head at the amount of misinformed anti-communist crap in this thread.

BTW, it's syndicalism, not syndicatism.

*JohnT sits, stunned, at the fact that out of all of this, all that Che has to contribute is a spelling correction.



Of course we are used to the misinformed anti-capitalist crap in this forum.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Actually, that should prolly read: "historically informed," rather than "misinformed" but no need to split hairs....

-=Vel=-

Whatever. You are hardly one to talk, since you've made up almost everything I've read outta you. Given I haven't delved too deeply into this thread, I can't say whether or not you actually do get your hands on some historical facts eventually. I truely fear the amount f writing I'm gonna have to do in this thread.

But not tonight. Tonight I'm studying web accessibility. I have to return a book from Inter-Library Loan, and this book can no longer be bought as the publishing house went out of business.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I'm tired of this crap then. How can I debate with someone so dishonest?

How's that underemployment rate study going? Is it now up to 20%?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by JohnT


*JohnT sits, stunned, at the fact that out of all of this, all that Che has to contribute is a spelling correction.

I am trying to avoid this place while at work, and when I first saw the damn thread, it was already 6 pages long IIRC. I decided I'd rather watch Elizabeth Rex and play on AmberMUSH instead.

[JohnT]

In regards to the following:

A man who has been downsized, who suffers from depression and or psychological morbidity, shoots his wife and kids, goes into his former place of employment and shoots everyone he can find who doesn’t get away, then turns the gun on himself and commits suicide, because he believes that his total self-worth is measured by his ability to earn money in the capitalist system. Who are these people?

Let it be known that the man with depression and/or psychological morbidity apparently (as you wrote it) suffered from these diseases prior to being laid off.

In short, your argument doesn't wash. The diseases caused the shootings, not the loss of job.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How's that underemployment rate study going? Is it now up to 20%?

I'd be suprised it it was under 50% for 2030 .

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by JohnT


*JohnT sits, stunned, at the fact that out of all of this, all that Che has to contribute is a spelling correction.

Given that his debate has turned into who can make an ass of himself faster I am not surprised Che has given it a wide berth.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Garth Vader
Given that his debate has turned into who can make an ass of himself faster I am not surprised Che has given it a wide berth.

That is because Kid still thinks a command economy works.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Let me tell you about people living in fantasy world.

A man who has been downsized, who suffers from depression and or psychological morbidity, shoots his wife and kids, goes into his former place of employment and shoots everyone he can find who doesn’t get away, then turns the gun on himself and commits suicide, because he believes that his total self-worth is measured by his ability to earn money in the capitalist system. Who are these people? Not me, because I don’t measure my self-worth like that, but there isn’t a shortage of people who think like that who post here at poly.

People who measure their self-worth see the event on the news and separate it from reality. They tell themselves that it couldn’t happen to them, because they earn money through the capitalist system and believe that if they were downsized they would quickly find an even better job.

Now tell me who is living in a fantasy world.

Thing is, one doesn't have to make up stories to prove or disprove one's points.

Let me tell you about people living in the real world:

Ten Days that Shook My World

All the Lies that Are My Life, or, JohnT vs. His Parents

[Az]

What is wrong with syndicatism? I think it would be better than a wage-paying business because each person gets an equal share of the profit, that is the communist part, so the harder a person works the more everyone, INCLUDING the employee makes in profit; thus curing the "lousy work ethic" and "lack of an entrepeneurial spirit" problems that occur in most command economies. As I said, a Communism does not mean no free market, as long as employees contol the means of production it is a communist system.

1)Who establishes the bussiness?
2) If the worker owns a part of it, What happens when he's fired? Can he be fired?
3) How can this band of workers ( ) be stopped from exploiting things in the market, ala Pharmaceuticals vs. 3rd world, etc.?

The "lousy work ethic" that is being blamed on communism is the lack of an incentive system. Such an incentive system doesn't require private ownership.

In a command economy all Industrial demand can be predicted, since all the Industrial demand is controlled by the government itself.

I've talked to people that were middle-management in the SU. the failure of the system was in:
1) Lack of Accountability.
2) Lack of Fiscal discipline. ( derivative of 1)
3) Lack of investment in civilian infrasturcture.
4) The entire economy working for the military ( which created no.3).
5) Upper Echelon apathy ( once again, a derivative of 1).

The biggest problems being 1 and 4.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
*chegitz just shakes his head at the amount of misinformed anti-communist crap in this thread.

The anti-communist part is quite solid, unless you or someone comes up with a more coherent explanation of the goals of communism on a large scale, the justice or necessity of imposing such a system by force, and the means by which you'd actually run things, as opposed to the utter failures of the Great Leap Forward and Gosplan styles of management.

If you can't sell communism by means other than "well, the revolution is inevitable" or "it's the best for everyone, we can't document that, or explain how we'd do it, you just have to accept it on faith" then the problem isn't with the anti-communist crowd, it's with the sales pitch or the product.

[chequita guevara]

Stop trying to drag me into this debate!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Azazel

I've talked to people that were middle-management in the SU. the failure of the system was in:
1) Lack of Accountability.
2) Lack of Fiscal discipline. ( derivative of 1)
3) Lack of investment in civilian infrasturcture.
4) The entire economy working for the military ( which created no.3).
5) Upper Echelon apathy ( once again, a derivative of 1).

The biggest problems being 1 and 4.

Another issue outside the actual enterprise was the design of the planning system itself, creating "rewards" for inefficient behaviors and disincentives for higher efficiency. I'd expect talented people in middle and upper management would be extremely discouraged by those problems.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Stop trying to drag me into this debate!

How about dragging you into a real debate on the subject?

[Az]

Another issue outside the actual enterprise was the design of the planning system itself, creating "rewards" for inefficient behaviors and disincentives for higher efficiency. I'd expect talented people in middle and upper management would be extremely discouraged by those problems

I have no idea what are you talking about. Really. ( unlike that Iran thread. )

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
How about dragging you into a real debate on the subject?

Maybe later (I'd actually enjoy it). I have to leave now.

[Odin]

I said I am still trying to work the wrinkles out, my theory of Syndicalist Communism should be finished in 2008 and will publish it as a project in my Economics minor (I will major in Life Science Teaching).

[Velociryx]

Che, it's Friday and I'm in too good a mood to be baited into a fight. I'll ask you the same thing I asked Templar.

If your glorious revolution is all it's cracked up to be, people would be falling all over themselves to be a part of it.....so, show me an example of it in action today.

Go ahead....just point it out on the map.

Till you can, it's just a bunch of smoke and mirrors. History backs up the fact that every time (EVERY time) it has been tried, it has failed. Worse, LOTS of people died trying to force it to work.

There's not a lot of wiggle room there, but of course, you're certainly free to try.

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Che was right. The REAL US unemployment rate is 9.1%. I read it this morning.

Also, 2% of the male US workforce is incarcerated.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
2) Yes, you may be able to scour psych text books and FIND a case like the one you mentioned. Statistically, however, such cases where the individual has lost all sense of self save for how it is defined by his/her economic status are such a tiny statistical minority that they are irrelevant to your "whole group" philosophy in any case. They simply do not exist in legions as you are suggesting. Of course, you don't have to believe me. Do your own research.

This request will take some time, but I accept.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How can this band of workers ( ) be stopped from exploiting things in the market, ala Pharmaceuticals vs. 3rd world, etc.?

This is also a concern of mine. How will a worker democracy capitalist state (which is the sort of communism I find most appealing, btw), be prevented from exploiting others? I don't think they will. 51% of the workers will be able to exploit the others if they are smart enough (and in some kind of democratic process, you know there would be back room dealings with cliques and so on).

I have no idea what are you talking about. Really.

For example (if you are being serious), the directives to 'make shoes' out of certain amount of leather resulted in abnormally high production of baby shoes, because it was easier to produce more of them from the same leather. Of course, what was needed was more adult shoes, but without real market forces (outside some farms) it wasn't gonna happen. Hence, reward inefficiency (because the managers would get bonuses).