new capitalism vs communism thread

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
How is the US "true capitalism"?

It isn't laissez-faire, but I'd say the US pretty much fits the bill for capitalist.

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Re: new capitalism vs communism thread

Originally posted by Spiffor

I don't feel like writing a paper right now, but here are the big ideas:

1. My understanding of communism is different from other CPOA members. What I say is my idea of communism, not every commie's.

That's fine - I'm not asking for someone else's

2. 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.

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).

4. Some would advocate a "pure" socialist system, that can also be depicted as "anarcho-syndicalist": every company is held by its employees, and there is no overall economic authority to monitor all that. I oppose such a view that I deem extremistic.

5. Politics plays an important role in a socialist society. The State should have a strong (if not absolute) directional power in the affairs of general-interest companies. The State should also create economic opportunities for independent companies to use them, and it should avoid resources to be wasted by the private (yet worker-owned) part of the economy.
As a defender of the common interest and major supplier of resources, the State is very important in my model.

6. It is extremely important that the State is democratic. I'd pick a democratic capitalism over a despotic communism any day. Since communism or socialism is about giving the power back to the people, such a project is doomed to failure if any concession is made with authoritarianism.

7. Personal rights would be protected. People can own watches, fridges, cars, homes. But they can't own production means. The exception to that are monopersonal companies: they should be as free as one can get.

8. I don't believe in "to each according to his needs". A strictly flat income is the bast way to encourage sloth. OTOH, any sensible socialist State will not only reduce income disparities (since the workers in power will not accept their bosses getting millions while they earn a few dimes), but it should also have a strong safety net. But the extent of the safety net would be dictated by the will of the people.

That's pretty good, but I'm hoping to see the specifics of something like this - if we're going to argue, we have to have something to argue over

[Kuciwalker]

The ultimate goal of this exercise is of course to examine the actual mechanisms of communism to see if they would work (read: prove them wrong ) - capitalism is much easier to describe, because it's a self-organising system. Communism, however, requires state control over industry, which requires some specific mechanism.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by skywalker
The ultimate goal of this exercise is of course to examine the actual mechanisms of communism to see if they would work (read: prove them wrong ) - capitalism is much easier to describe, because it's a self-organising system. Communism, however, requires state control over industry, which requires some specific mechanism.

Actually, I would argue that for Communism to work, it is necessary that the state have no control over industry. But there is no need for me to tell you this, you know it as well. Communism is much easier to describe than even capitalism since it is humanity's default position, so to speak.

[DaShi]

Has anyone ignorantly suggested that communism is an economic theory as if to imply that any discussion of it in relation to government is irrelevant yet?

[Sava]

my cat's breath smells like cat food

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Spam the opiate of the masses.

[Spiffor]

Re: Re: Re: new capitalism vs communism thread

Originally posted by skywalker
That's pretty good, but I'm hoping to see the specifics of something like this - if we're going to argue, we have to have something to argue over

I don't exactly see what you call the specifics, unless you want me to provide a constitution, a budget, a whole code of laws, every company's internal regulation, etc. Guess what: I can't. The precise organization of any system requires years of work for thousands of people. Even in today's capitalism, you have full-time jobs representatives, civil servants and managers who constantly redefine the "specifics".
I alone can certainly not imitate them. Please be more specific as to what you expect by "specifics", and I may be able to answer.

[Whaleboy]

Capitalism!!!

[Tripledoc]

There is no contradiction between Capitalism and Communism. The process form Capitalism towards Communism is an historical process decided by the inherent contadictions in Capitalism.

In former treasury secretay Paul O'Neils recollection Alan Greenspan is at one point noted as having said:

"Capitalism is not working! There has been a corrupting of the system of capitalism."*

So if the director of the central bank says this, does it mean it is true? No, but it does suggest a perception of true crisis at the highest level.

Clearly the United States has had the worlds most succesful capitalist system the world has ever seen. However this succes has perhaps in large parts been brought about by external features not through inherent strenghts in the Capitalist system itself.

Notably the absense of any strong labor movement, the dominance in international finance, the near monopolization of the worlds exchange currency, the willingness of other nations to cover the US trade deficits. The willingness of weaker nations to open their markets for privatization, also known as globalization.

In Europe it is clear that Capitalism is not working at all. Growth is painfully slow. Real unemployment is around 25 percent. Resource scarcity, pollution, unemployment, demographic shifts, oversatiated markets and more have meants that the State has had to take over more and more control. Should the state take over the means of production this would have insignificant impact on the economy, except it might mean less corruption scandals. (Parmalat for instance)

*The Price of Loyalty:
George W. Bush, the White House,
and the Education of Paul O'Neill, page 226

[Spiffor]

Tripledoc:
Don't forget one thing, the people behind the overthrowing of capitalism are very important. If there are no people willing to devote their lives to the overthrowing of capitalism, it will remain in place.
Also, the opinions of the overthrowers are extremely important for the new system. The USSR and all its satellites have remained in the shadow of Lenin and Stalin until the fall. China and all its clients have remained in the shadow of Mao until turning capitalist.

I know Marx's dialectics make it sound like an obvious, mechanical transition, but it's not. History is nothing without people to advance it.

[Whaleboy]

Trip: Inclined to agree, there are elements of both in their familial interpretations, and I dare say that human economies need both.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Tripledoc:
Don't forget one thing, the people behind the overthrowing of capitalism are very important. If there are no people willing to devote their lives to the overthrowing of capitalism, it will remain in place.

If the European Commision decided today to 'nationalize' ('europeanize?') all industries would you even lift one eyebrow?

The revolution needs an avantgarde, no?

[Sava]

"Capitalism is not working! There has been a corrupting of the system of capitalism."*

poor Alan...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
If the European Commision decided today to 'nationalize' ('europeanize?') all industries would you even lift one eyebrow?

Of course! I would cheer like crazy!