new capitalism vs communism thread

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Ned
Tripledoc, some would say that the Roman Army control of society caused the decline.

That and some awful leadership...

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Ned
Tripledoc, some would say that the Roman Army control of society caused the decline.

I agree. Tin-pot regimes are definately to be avoided.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Did you know that in Europe alone 100.000 workers, and possibly their families too, are going to die, because they were told asbestos is a safe building material.

Asbestos is so dangerous that when the women washed their men's working clothes, the micro fibres would get into their lungs too.

Did you know in WW2 that thousands of men died in freindly fire, from barrage artillery, fighter bomber aircraft and a lack of command/control?

This, like your comment, while true, has totally no bearing on the topic.

[Tripledoc]

Then why don't the Capitalists give medals to workers?

[Az]

*cough* aren't we getting sidetracked?

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Then why don't the Capitalists give medals to workers?

They do better than that.

They give a unequalled standard of living.

Where would prefer to get live-saving medical treatment?

It wouldn't be Cuba I bet!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
In my opinion, that would be the accountable managers. A democratic company doesn't get rid of the management (much like a democratic country doesn't get rid of the government), but it makes the management accountable.

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

No. Just like the decisions of a Parliament shouldn't be overriden.
But in my model, the workers don't take each and every decision. WRT the company as a whole, they voice their opinion on most important issues, and they give orientations to the management. OTOH, workers should have a high say within their own department, wrt work conditions, efficiency of work, etc.

Shouldn't or can't? Surely some branch of government elected by the people is able to override the decisions of the workers - otherwise the workers are in complete control of the country, and can do whatever they want.

Third, should the military be similarly democratic?

I don't think so. The military, unlike any other institution, is all about immediate survival, and maximal efficiency simply in order not to get gutted.
However, much say should be given regarding the working conditions, individual demands from the soldiers should be accepted if possible, and we can imagine some extent of democracy in calmer missions.

, though that leeway would have to be allowed by the commanders, not encoded in the law (it would be too difficult to legislate what was a "calmer mission").

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?)

Very few companies or public services are in the business of killing or being killed. Only the police is comparable to the military in this regard (and I don't think the police should be entirely democratic as well). Firefighters, like any other public service, should have clear objectives given by the State, but the firefighters should have as much leeway as possible in organizing themselves to reach these objectives.

I understand that they have leeway - my question is, is this leeway mandated by the constitution or allowed by the government? It seems to me that the company, because it is serving the people, would have to be accountable to them, otherwise it could do whatever the hell it wanted (even if it was given "objectives").

My point with all of this is that a top-down hierarchy is necessary in any organization that serves more than itself, so that it is accountable to more than itself. The President gives orders and they are carried out by the people below him, because the President is elected and they are not.

[Az]

Shouldn't or can't? Surely some branch of government elected by the people is able to override the decisions of the workers - otherwise the workers are in complete control of the country, and can do whatever they want.

Yeah, and we can't let THAT happen.

[Ned]

The problem with a democratic military is also illustrated by the many examples of different units of the Roman Army electing different Imperators.

Civil War.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by curtsibling


They do better than that.

They give a unequalled standard of living.

Where would prefer to get live-saving medical treatment?

It wouldn't be Cuba I bet!

The capitalists did not give nothing. It was only due to the threat by the East that the social-fascists couped the executive and decided that the workers should have some crumbs from the table too, to prevent the overturning of the captalist order.

The workers were moved from their squalid living conditions in the urban centres, and moved to the suburbs to linger. They even then had to accept unnaturally high prices, which were to be paid off annually to the huge funds whose money were used to invest in the capitalist enterprize.

Hitler gave each member of the working class a Volkswagen.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
The capitalists did not give nothing. It was only due to the threat by the East that the social-fascists couped the executive and decided that the workers should have some crumbs from the table too, to prevent the overturning of the captalist order.

So you prefer the pure agrarian soviet life?
Why are you sitting at a computer then?

Do you actually recognise the excesses of men like Mao and Stalin?

Or are you totally blinkered?

Originally posted by Tripledoc The workers were moved from their squalid living conditions in the urban centres, and moved to the suburbs to linger. They even then had to accept unnaturally high prices, which were to be paid off annually to the huge funds whose money were used to invest in the capitalist enterprize.

Oh! Woe to the poor people living in the suburbs!

Unable to be liquidated by a people's soviet for disloyalty!

I think you need to be deprived of your good standard of living for a while, in order to stop taking it for granted.

PS
Have you ever done a day's work?

Originally posted by Tripledoc Hitler gave each member of the working class a Volkswagen.

A Volkswagen with tracks and 75mm gun, called a Panzer - and told the working class to invade Russia.

And you know where Hitler's socialism got him.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by curtsibling
In communism, people work to the end of their lives.

Why should there be no retirement system in communism?

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Spiffor


Why should there be no retirement system in communism?

There is only retirement to gulag.

[curtsibling]

@Spiffor:

You appear to be a prominent follower of this commie thing.

Answer me a question, if you will:

Would you be willing to give up all your posessions and owned goods, to become a destitute worker in a communist regime?

If you were satisfied that the leaders were true to what you believe?

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by curtsibling
So you prefer the pure agrarian soviet life?

Where did I say that? People have the misconception that agrarian life is romantic, but I know from my own experience that it is not. It is blood and feces.

Why are you sitting at a computer then?

To spread communist propaganda.

Do you actually recognise the excesses of men like Mao and Stalin?

Do you realize the excesses of capitalism and Imperialism. How was the British empire capable of providing each labouer in Britain with sugar lumps to put in their tea. Simple. They took slaves from Africa, and put them to work on the sugar plantations in the Caribean. The english labourer was thus only provided with his small luxuries due to the fact that this was produced by breaking th back of slaves.

Or are you totally blinkered?

No, are you?

Oh! Woe to the poor people living in the suburbs!

They are not poor. they are simply not aware that their wealth is currently being taken away from them. Wealth disparity in Europe is growing as we speak.

Unable to be liquidated by a people's soviet for disloyalty!

Do you actually believe this propaganda. Stalin was personally responsible for the eradication of reactionary elements within the army and the communist party. The huge loss of life in the Soviet Union prior to the invasion by Nazi Germany and the subsequent even huger loss of life that resulted in, was not done as a willfull act, but was mainly due to poor and erratic planning

I think you need to be deprived of your good standard of living for a while, in order to stop taking it for granted.

I am not taking it for granted. See above. The good living standards are evaporating.

PS
Have you ever done a day's work?

I have shoveled chicken**** at a chicken farm in Canada.

A Volkswagen with tracks and 75mm gun, called a Panzer - and told the working class to invade Russia.

And you know where Hitler's socialism got him.

Hitler was not a socialist.