new capitalism vs communism thread

[monkspider]

The answer to how a Communist-esque society works is common sense, and needs no explanation. Anyone curious will easily find the answer.

[Harry Tuttle]

Ow, ow, my eyes hurt. To...much...spam...

Anyways, I'l make the argument that capitalism works because it fosters ownership. Ownership helps to extend a person's understanding of self through the ability to give away and receive compensation for things created. By being able to own what you have created you can extend greater control over your ideas and your identity.

In Communism, the idea of "self" is second banana to the idea of "everyone". Ownership in Communism is essentially left up to the state where control is given to the whole instead of the one.

We can all agree that the key to self motivation is the ability to control ones own production, whether it be ownership dibs on a new Civ3 unit you created, or your idea on a new flavored ice cream. If your Civ3 unit or ice cream flavor was taken away from your control and made to belong to the whole, I bet you'd stop creating Civ3 units or ice cream flavors as would not receive anything in return. The ability to personally own and control are the biggest assets capitalism has, and that is why it's framework has worked so well.

Ok, that's my hypothesis.

[chequita guevara]

*cg peeks, runs away screaming "AUGH!!!!!"

[Spiffor]

Re: Re: Re: new capitalism vs communism thread

Originally posted by yavoon
will u trade w/ the more efficient capitalist pig dogs?

Depends if it hurts or benefits the country of course. Capitalism isn't doomed to be more efficient, if the socialistic economy is done in a responsible fashion. A strong country emphasizing on education and infrastructure can get better quality products than capitalist pigdogs running sweatshops.

[Sandman]

I'm not really a communist, but it seriously annoys me that governments are so unwilling to nationalise certain industries.

There's nothing wrong with state-owned businesses. They're a useful tool in certain circumstances, and we shouldn't be afraid to use them. Unfortunately, there's a whole array of institutions lined up to prevent successful nationalised industries from ever getting off the ground; the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank and the EU.

It would be nice if there was an international organisation that helped countries build up and maintain publicly-owned utilities, to counteract the overwhelming (and misguided) urge to privatise everything in sight.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

How do you do this? Most of the companies in the world are owned by their workers (ie, sole proprietorships, partnerships). There are only few, relatively, which are in the corporate form, and that is because of the economies of scale for certain industries (ie, you'd need corporations to make computers).

And what happens when these companies lose money during down times and the shareholder/workers refuse to fire anyone? Is the economy doomed to massive depression every decade or so?

[Harry Tuttle]

light! no the light! HISSSSSSSS......

[yavoon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: new capitalism vs communism thread

Originally posted by Spiffor

Depends if it hurts or benefits the country of course. Capitalism isn't doomed to be more efficient, if the socialistic economy is done in a responsible fashion. A strong country emphasizing on education and infrastructure can get better quality products than capitalist pigdogs running sweatshops.

yes because capitalist countries don't emphasize education? hrrrm.

America spends a larger % of its GDP on education than any other nation. and I read a recent article on how envious european universities are of the money american ones have.

[Arrian]

Damnit, I looked again.

to Spiffor, for actually presenting something resembling a plan.

And, since his plan specifically requires democracy, I heartily approve. I'm still skeptical about the viability of such a society, but hey, if it doesn't work the people can democratically switch back to a more capitalistic system.

-Arrian

p.s. Speaking of screaming in horror, my girlfriend has country playing downstairs and I can hear it.

THE HORROR!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
How do you do this? Most of the companies in the world are owned by their workers (ie, sole proprietorships, partnerships). There are only few, relatively, which are in the corporate form, and that is because of the economies of scale for certain industries (ie, you'd need corporations to make computers).

The arrival to power is another topic, and the most tricky one. Many commies believe a new system can only be founded through revolution, but I don't (revolution bears the seeds of authoritarianism I despise). My personal take would be to have a progressive policy taxing income from capital, while having the law force increasing representativity of the employees in the Company's Council (how do you call that in English?).
The end result would be to make shareholding utterly unattractive, while the employee's representativeness crawls up to 100%, leaving no room to shareholders in the decision process.

And what happens when these companies lose money during down times and the shareholder/workers refuse to fire anyone? Is the economy doomed to massive depression every decade or so?

How do democratic countries do? A democratic system in the company doesn't mean there will be no managers, no people trained for the job to look for concrete solutions. It merely means that they'll have to be accountable to the employees (which includes themselves btw), rather than to shareholders. During hard times, the employees may be willing to accept sacrifical plans. And during good times, they may be willing to accept wage increases

[monkspider]

I applaud Comrade Spiffor for his well thought out model, but true communism requires no government at all, and I am not sure he would disagree.

[Arrian]

No government at all.



I think that's the "invisible hand" Spiff says he doesn't buy into, MS.

-Arrian

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by monkspider
I applaud Comrade Spiffor for his well thought out model, but true communism requires no government at all, and I am not sure he would disagree.

Well, I stated I don't believe in "true" communism, because I don't believe in any form of invisible hand. As soon as there is no invisible hand, the State is needed.

So, basically, I either disagree with you or with true communism (but disagreement is perfectly normal in the CPoA; we're not a monolith )

[Imran Siddiqui]

Speaking of screaming in horror, my girlfriend has country playing downstairs and I can hear it.

We are taking over .

My personal take would be to have a progressive policy taxing income from capital, while having the law force increasing representativity of the employees in the Company's Council (how do you call that in English?).

Board of Directors. And the problems are, of course, that unless you control the whole world, corporations can escape and leave your people.

It merely means that they'll have to be accountable to the employees (which includes themselves btw), rather than to shareholders.

IMO, that is a recipe for inefficiency (focusing on worker's profit instead of company profit). I think it is much less likely that worker owned corps will make the sacrificial plans which are needed. Of course I could be wrong .

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
IMO, that is a recipe for inefficiency (focusing on worker's profit instead of company profit).

Also, be aware that focusing on shareholder's prot doesn't mean focusing on company profit as well. It would be best if there was a fathomable way to systematically favor company profit, but it simply isn't the case. In many cases, shareholders have no interest in their company's long term survival, and are only interested in immediate returns. I trust the employees, who spend hours at work each day to be more responsible about their company than ivory tower shareholders.