new capitalism vs communism thread

[Odin]

I am at heart a communist, but my path in getting to the stage of anarchy and "to each according to his abillity, to each according to his need" is more in the syndicalist blood. Basically, I think the corporation should be abolished and replaced by a system of co-ops. I don't think ideal Communism can exist until we are technologically advanced enough that consumer goods have practically no monetary value, we will be that productive (talk to Che or Kid if you want more info, I'm not much into economic theory ). That is why capitalism doesn't work; innovations cause job losses so people get stuck in low-paying McJobs.

Now if Neddy and a few others would quit sticking thier head in the sand we could have a much better discussion!

Sky, like some of your ideas, even though I don't agree with a lot of them. I wish Ned and Fez among others would quit giving you good capitalist guys a bad name.

[Spiffor]

Since your critique is very long, I decided to take each point at a time.

Originally posted by Tripledoc
.................................................. ........................................
2.(Spiffors points are numbered) 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.
.................................................. ........................................
A critique of Democracy must neccesarily start with a short presentation of Toqueville's writings. In the chapter'Singular facilities for the establishment of despotism' he presents the following case.

Modern Democracy is characterized by, an 'innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures which with they glut their lives' And each one of these citizens live in a closed world by his lonely self.

Ruling over these men is, 'an immense and tutelary power which takes upon itself to secure their gratifications...' The final goal is to. 'keep them in perpetual childhood'. They are reduced to 'nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.'

This is the first thing with which I disagree with Tocqueville. This has to do with his dubious methodology, that makes him more of a BAM than a political analyst.
A democracy that is strictly about electing a constitutional despot every now and then has a good chance to produce the results Tocqueville is describing. However, a democracy that empowers the people in taking the most important decisions (while leaving the pettier ones to an elected political class), as well as a democracy that protects the opportunities of expression for most parties, is one where people get to know about the issues at hand, and where they have a choice.

The 'people combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty'.In other words, the people elect leaders and grant them immense powers to subdue them, while the leaders are themselves subdued by power of the electorate. This can only lead ever downwards.

I do not understand what you mean by "going downwards". Do you mean such system is doomed to demagogery? To inefficiency? To lack of responsivity? How and why does such a fall happen?

He then goes on and concludes that,'To create a representation of the people in every centralized country is, therefore, to diminish the evil that extreme centraliztion may produce, but not get rid of it'. Meaning that while Democracy is the lesser of all evils, the evil resides unless, either representation is discarded for something else, or centralization is broken. So why not seek an avenue of approach which seeks to overturn
both representation and centralization?

In the point you are discussing, I was emphasizing that my system needs a form of authority, of coordination, because I do not believe in a system that coordinates itself spontaneously (invisible hand). This is the reason why I think classical economists and their ilk (from Smith to Laffer and beyond) are full of crap, and that's also the reason why I don't believe in the ideal classless / stateless society depicted by Marx. Such a presentation of belief was the very point of this section, not the description of the democracy I envision.

Now, if you want to discuss the democratic system itself I advocate, it has an extent of representation for practical matters (namely, to decide on the great many petty issues, whose resolution would be infinitely too demanding for people who are not making this their full-time job). But the most important issues would be decided by referendum, as prepared by the representatives, or grassroots petitioners.
A judiciary would check if these initiatives are comaptible with the existing fundamental and mundane laws, it would then correct the legal mistakes (before the vote) if any.

I think competences should be devoted to different layers of power. Cities should have their own competences, large districts should have their own competences, nations should have their own competences, supranational institutions should have their own competences. As such, centralization and decentralization are complementary, not incompatible.

For example, cities would be the best layer of power for sewage (I can't help but write "sexage" ), local transportation, daily convenience infrastructure in general, as well as the geographic evolution of the city (i.e where to build that new factory, etc.)
OTOH, the supranational level would be the best layer for supranational issues, such as global economic / financial concerns, harmonising the rules, security issues, overall economic orientation, etc.

If we now consider what extreme representation and extreme centralization will lead to, the prospects are not good, to put it mildly. The people will through their clamoring give power to those who are most capable of satisfying their ublu material needs. In an age when
imperialism is succumbing to the law of diminishing returns, when the people can be moved through massive propaganda, when politicians feel little or no responsibility towards such basic things as truth and honesty, handing the immense powers of centralization of a socialized state run economy to elected officials will inevitably lead to a most vicious and suicidal kind of fascism.

Capitalist democratic societies have lived through 60 years of both extreme centralization and extreme representation without falling into fascism yet (except the US of course, but fascism is the nature of the American people ). And I fail to understand your logic: what has the handling of economy to do with reaching fascism or not?
And again, I'm no firend of representative democracy, but a purely direct democracy is simply impractical, for the reasons I stated there.

The most basic avenues of solutions to the problem is therefore to 1) empower each citizen in the productive process in order that he gets a real feel for what it takes to produce what is consumed.

This is exactly what I suggested in later points, to make companies democratic and accountable to their workers. The very reason as to why I think companies should be run democratically is precisely to empower the people.

2) this empowerment will only happen when the most basic reason that wealth and subsequently power accumulates in the hands of the few is removed. That reason is the upholding of private property of all kinds.

Of all kinds? Why? You can reach the same objective with the only removal of private properties of the production means, simply because wealth gets created and thus accumulated by production means. There is no need to remove private property. The removal of personal property, as opposed to property of production means, is extremely impractical, and simply sucks. I, no more than anybody, don't want to lose items I took for granted simply because some bureaucrat said so (or even simply because some mob says so). Income is very different to actual property in this regard (or savings), because income is money that hasn't been used yet to acquire belongings, hence infinitely less frustration factor.
There's no way I come back home after a day at work only to find my house and my bed occupied by some unknown people

3) As stated present day democracy has degenerated into a wild scuffle for those who promise most goods at the least expense to the citizen. A solution to this requires some pondering on the issue.

I think the hybrid suggestion I'm hinting to is the best available, making the idea of direct democracy compatible with practicability.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The laws of the country, as democratically decided by the people at large, are superior to a company's regulation. Much like the internal regulation of a company in today's developed capitalist societies have to be compatible with the Law.

Ok, I've got it clear. That works (though you realize, of course, that this allows the higher level of the hierarchy to effectively regulate the company as much as happens in America today - they'd just have to legislate it ).

This is a technical question. But in general, I think we should trust the elected people to jusge what's a "calmer mission" or not. Many military elites strongly dislike the odea of having their authority discussed by base soldiers, and they'll continuingly pretend theey are in an emergency situation even when it's objectively not the case. For example, a peackeeping mission with very low MIA account could easily be deemed a "calmer mission" by the democratic institutions.

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").

What I meant is that the company has leeway, but the frame is 1) respecting the Law and 2) respecting the objectives. Basically, the leeway is about how work i organized, how to manage the available resources, etc.

Point taken. I think the State (I wouldn't say the "president", since you can imagine a power-structure that isn't presidential à la the US; besides "the "State" is in charge of preparing the law and executing it, unlike the only person of the president) should be giving objectives, and taking measures if they are not reached. It should give objectives to any public service as well.

The main difference between Azael's model and mine is that mine doesn't define what are "public services" or not. To Azazel, the State should give objectives to any given sector in the industry. I am still undecided to the extent of planification of the economy (but I'm a strong partisan of free one-person companies, unlike Az)

dammit, I'm agreeing too much with you my thoughts here are just that this system would grow too inefficient due to lack of competition.

[Kuciwalker]

Spiffor and Azazel: what if someone managed to construct a "means of production"? Would that person be allowed to own it? Also, aren't computers incredibly poweful "means of production"'s? Would people be allowed to own computers?

[Kuciwalker]

Oh, and Spiffor, you say you don't believe in an "invisible hand" - do you mean you don't believe in market forces? You don't believe capitalism is a self-organizing system?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
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).
.................................................. .........................................
In a communist economy there is no place for private property, which must neccesarily leave the shareholder out of the picture. There is no solution in now letting the workers become the capitalists by default by letting them take over the power of the production. A democratization of the factory plant will only mean that the same processes explained in the Toquevillian critique of Democracy will now take place on the sub-level.

I thought you opposed the combo of democracy + centralization? The very point of democratic companies ("sub-level") is to decentralize the decision making.

Furthermore that kind of worker Democracy will neccesarily be subserviant to the national Democracy, or finally the supranational Democracy.

Yes, in the meaning that company democracy won't be able to disrespect national / supranational law. And objectives, if the economy is planned (which is an issue about which I'm undecided yet)

In this case how is it then to be avoided that the worker will not by his own accord see the benefit in working harder to satisfy not only his own needs and that of his family(which is communism)

I may have not understood something, but I thought you were precisely opposed in rewarding those who work harder at the expense of slackers: "Thus people who work more should not be rewarded" (your critique to my point 8).
And I fail to see why democratic companies go against individualized wages. If most people have a good work ethics, they will demand individualized wages rewarding the most productive workers.

but see an impulse to work for the socalled 'greater good'. This creates oversupply

WRT oversupply, I don't see the difference between motivating people to work hard for themselves + family, or to work hard for the greater good. Both motivations (if working) will bring more production, and thus "oversupply" as you put it - as long as you agree with the premise that more production = oversupply, with which I disagree.
Besides, my system is precisely about making a balanced socialist system despite mankind being fundamentally egoistic. I.e, I don't think the "greater good" will motivate anybody but a few very socially active people.

and this again sparks imperialism as the search for new markets is now prioritized.

I disagree. People produce wealth as they work. Wealth production grossly equates work*productivity. Now, there are plenty things that wastes such wealth (bad production allocation, bad monetary allocation, etc.), but fundamentally, any work can produce wealth, that in turn can be used to buy goods and services produced by other people's work. The result of your work simply has to be useful for someone else who can afford it, and who knows about your product.

You don't have to go imperialistic to open new markets, because you are creating a market as you work more. For example, western countries don't have to go imperialistic to sell their hardware and software. TheUSSR didn't have to go imperialistic to sell its steel: it used it very extensively already.

But in order to not go imperialism, you need technological innovation, to make the creation of new markets possible once the old ones get saturated, and you need a wise allocation of resources, to avoid saturation of markets.
In the end, oversupply comes from an ill allocation of resources, not because people work too much / with a too high productivity.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
Spiffor and Azazel: what if someone managed to construct a "means of production"? Would that person be allowed to own it? Also, aren't computers incredibly poweful "means of production"'s? Would people be allowed to own computers?

A "mean of production" is basically a company, or anything that creates wealth is work is put into it. Computers are incredibly powerful means of productions, but you cannot make this website if you don't put any work into it.

I am a strong supporter of free mono-personal enterprise, simply because the "owner" and the "workers" are the very same person, so this one person should be in charge of his company's destiny.
However, as soon as this woner has employees (hence loses his status as mono-personal company), the employee should have a say in the company as well. That doesn't mean the first guy will shut up: he works as well, so he should keep his say. Chances are his visionary behaviour will make him remain the de facto patriarch of the company, at least as long as he's successful.

However, that's because I think at least a part of the economy should escape planning. I think Azazel prefers an entirely planned economy, where the ingenuous guy submits his idea to the planning bureau, and gets a reward if the idea is accepted.

[Imran Siddiqui]

innovations cause job losses so people get stuck in low-paying McJobs.

If that were true then the median income today would be less than it was in 1700. That is obviously not the case.

[The Andy-Man]

but isn't it inevitable that all sucesful mono-buissness will become larger and larger until a 6person board effectivley runs the 600man workforce? And isn't participation of suc ha large workforce, who may no f- all about runnig the whole operation, almost impossible?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
A "mean of production" is basically a company, or anything that creates wealth is work is put into it. Computers are incredibly powerful means of productions, but you cannot make this website if you don't put any work into it.

I am a strong supporter of free mono-personal enterprise, simply because the "owner" and the "workers" are the very same person, so this one person should be in charge of his company's destiny.
However, as soon as this woner has employees (hence loses his status as mono-personal company), the employee should have a say in the company as well. That doesn't mean the first guy will shut up: he works as well, so he should keep his say. Chances are his visionary behaviour will make him remain the de facto patriarch of the company, at least as long as he's successful.

However, that's because I think at least a part of the economy should escape planning. I think Azazel prefers an entirely planned economy, where the ingenuous guy submits his idea to the planning bureau, and gets a reward if the idea is accepted.

What if the workers the person hires agree to let him have control of the company, rather than make it democratic?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
Oh, and Spiffor, you say you don't believe in an "invisible hand" - do you mean you don't believe in market forces? You don't believe capitalism is a self-organizing system?

Absolutely. There is nothing mathematical, no absolute correlation between price, offer and supply (which is the main mechanics of the "market forces")
Sure, people tend to raise their prices when they see there is a huge demand, and they tend to lower their prices when they witness a low demand. However, this is a human, and hence irrational, unmathematical behaviour, unlike what the economists want us to believe.

Besides, capitalism is a self-organizing system in the meaning that companies create their regulations, objectives, organizations, products, prices etc by themselves. But there is again nothing automagical in it: those are people taking such decisions, based on a necessarily flawed information, and analyzed through a web of necessarily flawed assumptions (inherent to every individual, what we call the worldview). Hence, the result will not be the magical optimum economists dream of.

Lastly, the consumers themselves can be radically irrational. They are not strictly following the price. For example, you may want to go buy your apples to this cutie's appleshop, or you may want to go to that one supermarket because you have done so for the past 20 years.

---

That was for the validity of market forces as a strictly mathematical relation.

I also fail to see why there would be an invisible hand in orienting resources in open markets, fleeing closed markets. Sure, companies will tend to look for more sellable products, but then again, flawed information and flawed worldview will skew these results. A familly company will try to survive even though the company looks unviable, because it's part of the family's history. Big corporations may spend millions because of the boss's pet project.

And last but not least (definitely not least), big shareholders or owners may want to completely wreck a perfectly viable company in order to milk immediate profit. Such a pilfering destroyed Russia's economy after the fall of the USSR, as ambitious capitalists acquired companies in order to suck their whole capital and leave the company bloodless and dead. Such a thing happens all the time in our economies as well, when shareholders destroy profitable and viable activites to increase their short-term returns. Invisible hand? My ass, that's the visible hand of greed

[Odin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

innovations cause job losses so people get stuck in low-paying McJobs.

If that were true then the median income today would be less than it was in 1700. That is obviously not the case.

This is because the early service industries were dominated by small "Ma & Pa" stores, little small town diners, and whatever. Now it is huge corporations like McDonnalds and Wal-Mart who care more about making a "massive enough" profit to please investors than thier employees (who they treat as commodities, which is demeaning).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Absolutely. There is nothing mathematical, no absolute correlation between price, offer and supply (which is the main mechanics of the "market forces")
Sure, people tend to raise their prices when they see there is a huge demand, and they tend to lower their prices when they witness a low demand. However, this is a human, and hence irrational, unmathematical behaviour, unlike what the economists want us to believe.

Huh? Because of competition, prices will (generally) correspond roughly to the costs of production. If something costs less to produce, supply increases, and thus there will be more competition and the price will fall (as people will be able to cut prices further and still make a profit). If something costs more to produce, supply decreases, and the price goes up because people have to sell at a higher price to still make a profit. When more people are trying to buy a limited resource, it is basically an auction, and the price will go up. When fewer people are willing to buy a limited resource, the price won't be driven as high.

Besides, capitalism is a self-organizing system in the meaning that companies create their regulations, objectives, organizations, products, prices etc by themselves. But there is again nothing automagical in it: those are people taking such decisions, based on a necessarily flawed information, and analyzed through a web of necessarily flawed assumptions (inherent to every individual, what we call the worldview). Hence, the result will not be the magical optimum economists dream of.

By "self-organizing" I mean that it requires a few simple rules, and complex structures emerge. The universe is also a self-organizing system - simple interactions between fundamental particles yield enormously complex structures.

I also fail to see why there would be an invisible hand in orienting resources in open markets, fleeing closed markets. Sure, companies will tend to look for more sellable products, but then again, flawed information and flawed worldview will skew these results. A familly company will try to survive even though the company looks unviable, because it's part of the family's history. Big corporations may spend millions because of the boss's pet project.

Yes, but statistically, and in the long run, such companies will go out of business or at least become less competitive, because they are less efficient. More efficient companies will take over an increasingly large part of the market share, because they will be able to sell at lower prices and still make a profit. Generally people buy the cheapest product (assuming equal levels of quality).

And last but not least (definitely not least), big shareholders or owners may want to completely wreck a perfectly viable company in order to milk immediate profit. Such a pilfering destroyed Russia's economy after the fall of the USSR, as ambitious capitalists acquired companies in order to suck their whole capital and leave the company bloodless and dead. Such a thing happens all the time in our economies as well, when shareholders destroy profitable and viable activites to increase their short-term returns. Invisible hand? My ass, that's the visible hand of greed

And those companies that allow that will go out of business (as you stated), thus the companies that DON'T allow that gain an increasing market share.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Absolutely. There is nothing mathematical, no absolute correlation between price, offer and supply (which is the main mechanics of the "market forces")
Sure, people tend to raise their prices when they see there is a huge demand, and they tend to lower their prices when they witness a low demand. However, this is a human, and hence irrational, unmathematical behaviour, unlike what the economists want us to believe.

Besides, capitalism is a self-organizing system in the meaning that companies create their regulations, objectives, organizations, products, prices etc by themselves. But there is again nothing automagical in it: those are people taking such decisions, based on a necessarily flawed information, and analyzed through a web of necessarily flawed assumptions (inherent to every individual, what we call the worldview). Hence, the result will not be the magical optimum economists dream of.

Lastly, the consumers themselves can be radically irrational. They are not strictly following the price. For example, you may want to go buy your apples to this cutie's appleshop, or you may want to go to that one supermarket because you have done so for the past 20 years.

---

That was for the validity of market forces as a strictly mathematical relation.

I also fail to see why there would be an invisible hand in orienting resources in open markets, fleeing closed markets. Sure, companies will tend to look for more sellable products, but then again, flawed information and flawed worldview will skew these results. A familly company will try to survive even though the company looks unviable, because it's part of the family's history. Big corporations may spend millions because of the boss's pet project.

And last but not least (definitely not least), big shareholders or owners may want to completely wreck a perfectly viable company in order to milk immediate profit. Such a pilfering destroyed Russia's economy after the fall of the USSR, as ambitious capitalists acquired companies in order to suck their whole capital and leave the company bloodless and dead. Such a thing happens all the time in our economies as well, when shareholders destroy profitable and viable activites to increase their short-term returns. Invisible hand? My ass, that's the visible hand of greed

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Odin
That is why capitalism doesn't work; innovations cause job losses so people get stuck in low-paying McJobs.

Odin: innovation is certainly not happening in capitalism alone, and that's very fortunate. The Romans innovated, the Renaissance Europeans innovated, the Soviets innovated, and hopefully our grandchildrens' grandchildrens, who'll live in a far better society than capitalism, will continue to innovate.

Think about it: if it wasn't for innovation, we'd still be ploughing our fields with archaic tools. The work of one man on the fields would be barely enough to feed him, and we'd have famines just like in the middle ages.
Since the Middle ages, our agrarian population has dwindled from about 95% to less than 5%
Yet, you don't see 90% unemployement, do you?

That's because innovation has allowed people to work on other jobs. The peasants driven off their land became factory workers. The factory workers driven off their factories became office people or McJobs. Office people are becoming increasingly IT people. And maybe IT people will become "nano-people" or what do I know what awaits before us, once innovation makes fewer and fewer people needed at repetitive tasks.

The real problem with what I described is that it doesn't happen as joyfully as it seems. Many peasants have died in the city's streets as they were looking for a factory to exploit employ them. Manny factory workers were on the dole, or are still on the dole, trying to find a job in services; thay'll probably only find a MacJob in the end. Office people are getting increasingly worried by layoffs. Etc.

The problem we have to adress is how to manage a humane transition between previous jobs and next jobs. But the problem is definitely not innovation itself. Innovation is the great thing that allow us to discuss on 'Poly instead of dying while ploughing the field.