new capitalism vs communism thread

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Azazel
The majority of it lies with the other people buying him Printers.

What's wrong with that?

EDIT: and Savadoc, what the hell does that have to do with this thread?

[Tripledoc]

The tax reforms?

[Az]

This may be the mother of all disagreements. I think we should strive for providing the best possible living conditions, a "soft" concept that includes economic well-being, actual comfort, but also the opportunities of living a fulfilling life. To this end, an emphasis on the exonomic efficiency is needed, but I don't think it should be the be all end all of the system.

Utility isn't economic utility, it's ethical utility: providing people with the best lives possible. So we aren't disagreeing, really.

The model of government is a Federal republic with independent branches of the government, and a truly free press which is independent, just like the judiciary ( which is also independent, no politicians appointing the judges).

Nothing to oppose about this. However, laws should be made to avoid press monopolies, and to defend the right of even small factions to get political expression. It is a personal beef of mine these days, but a society isn't satisfyingly democratic if only one or two opinions get widely covered, while all the others are ignored by the mainstream media.

You're completly right.

The constitution is democratic and is socialist. Strikes a balance between the opinion of the majority and the rights of the minority on utilitarian principles. bans the private ownership of the means of production.

Excellent. However, I think the ban on the means of productions (like the affirmation of essential freedoms) should be possible to change with a very difficult process, such as the unanimity in the Parliament, or a 90% referendum. This means, if the model does not work, it lets room for it to change without a bloody revolution.

Of course, that's exactly what I meant. VERY difficult, but possible.

The economy is planned, products for the consumer being proposed to test groups, and demand being watched and predicted (by similar methods to what todays companies use).
Advertising is limited to product information, selling a lifestyle would be strictly forbidden.

This is the main question I'm asking myself. Would the economy be better off in a system with competition (albeit skewed), or will it be more efficient in a planned system?
I would think planification would be good for any general-interest industry, but other industries (especially consumer goods) should be left open to the initative of individuals or individual companies, thus allowing some trial and error. If the individual / the company wins the jackpot, good for them.

You only have that to ensure choice. I am not saying that there should be only one company making stuff. I only thing that it should be planned as well. I think that people who invent new consumer goods of real utility must be awarded, but this doesn't have to be through the start my own company mechanism.

And regarding advertizing. To warn people about the existence of a new product is the legitimate reason of advertizing. Anything else is manipulative crap.

*bows*

The companies would be run by managers who are are appointed by commitees. The commitees will consist of the workers of that particular plant, and people elected there by the parliament.

This is actually identical to my views of a democratic system within the company.
If I may add, I thhink the company should be a place where the "one person one vote" axiom doesn't hold. Here's the reason: I think various categories of employees should be significantly represented. I mean, even categories with limited staff should get heard, since a company is the interaction between all its departments. It would be stupid to let any vital component of the company getting ignored for lack of political weight.
As such, I'd advocate more a "senate" in the company (where the amount of 'senators' is not exactly proportional to the demographics), rather than an "assembly". I don't mean that every category should be equally represented, but I indeed mean that labor-unintensive categories would have some significant say at the expense of the uber-say of the labor-intensive categories. As such, one vote will be less worth than one another, exactly as the current systems of Senate around the world.

Way too complicated. I think that my system avoids this complication and allows a voice to the workers, and to the representatives of the general public.

Class struggle: Tricky. All issues will be settled through a labor court. Strikes are banned for the mere reason that the issue is being settled legally. If the workers are right, the management will have to abide, if not the workers will have to resume work. This actually isn't class struggle, it will be the rights of the public, vs. the rights of the minority, the workers of that particular institution.

I oppose any forbiddance of the strike rights. Should the judiciary be wrong in one of its rulings, the employees should be able to defend themselves. Besides, we have already seen many "democratic" countries ruthlessly punish strikes, and I don't want my beautiful socialism to be spoiled in blood again

You come out of the pov that the workers are always right. sadly, this is not the case. The fact that they are workers doesn't turn them into infallible saints.

I agree with a judiciary settlement of the disagreements, but it will be extremely tricky to have a set of laws that could allow to judge fairly.

It's more fair than have any of the other ways.

The Bureau of oversight - The state audior: ( perhaps will rework this )
A number of wise men will be presented by the executive to the public, they all must pass the scrutiny of the judiciary. have to not participate in political life prior to that for a rather lengthy period of time.

This individual, and his staff will seek out the inefficiencies, the wrongdoings and the corruption in the government, as well as fire all non-elected officials. This will be solely under the discretion of the Auditor itself. He'll also personally hire all of his staff.

Same critic as Che. It is extremely important to make the chief bureaucrat accountable. Maybe not directly to the people, but clearly to the representatives.

Besides, I have always been annoyed at the idea a technocrat is at the helm, rather than a politician. Even though most politicians are crap, the role of a politician is to provide a vision, an overall aim for the society. Such is not the role of a technocrat: he is supposed to make sure the daily stuff gets managed as effciently as possible.
I'd much prefer having a politician or a group of politicians in charge, with a system that allows them to have the time to develop a vision: grunt work to be discharge on lesser Politicians, the "higher ones" bearing no responsibility in the daily management and well being of the society (that would be another elected branch of government), the severance of partisan ties upon entering this status, etc. So that they could do a politician's job, i.e to submit a cohesive project to the society, which will then accept it or not.

If it will be accountible to politicians, He wouldn't be in a position to audit their actions. Don't be fooled: He's NOT the leader of the government. He's just correcting errors. And this guy will be wise and fair.

The Spirit of the society:

Egalitarian Technocratic. It will strive to expand our understanding of the universe, as well as our technological prowess in manipulating it. Also, will strive to make it's population happy, via genetic engineering, multiple recreational facilities, and the preservation of nature. Will have complete free thought but the laws will be strictly upheld.

You know I am cold to the idea of technocratic societies. Besides, I think genetic engineering should be left for the people to decide (it is after all little relevant for a socialist model).

It was a little addition by me. This just means that those in charge will have to be well educated.

As to the law being strictly upheld, we need to make sure the law reflect the wishes of the population, hence a really accountable democratic system must be devised. Otherwise, we'd be "strictly upholding" laws as idiotic as the ban on Music Downloading is today.

of course. But without big record corpration, you won't have a problem with this.

[Kuciwalker]

A few questions for those who support democratic companies:

First, who decides the wages? The people doing the work, or people somewhere up in the chain (possibly even the legislature)?

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

Third, should the military be similarly democratic?

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?)

[Az]

Ideally, there is no military, since the government encompasses the entire world.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by skywalker
First, who decides the wages? The people doing the work, or people somewhere up in the chain (possibly even the legislature)?

In a despotic rule it is the CEO who decides. In an objective marxist analysis the wages are decided by the amount of work being put into the products sold.

[Kuciwalker]

That's a good point but if you're claiming that communism would only work in a politically unified world...

What about in an unideal situation - hey, you asked me about foreign policy wrt imports from non-scmooist countries

EDIT: re Azazel, and you didn't answer my other questions

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


In a despotic rule it is the CEO who decides. In an objective marxist analysis the wages are decided by the amount of work being put into the products sold.

so if I am incredibly talented and put X effort into my work, producing 200 shoes, I get paid as much as someone who puts the same effort into their work but only manages to produce 100 shoes? So you are PUNISHING people with talent?

[Tripledoc]

What is shmooist economy? I looked it up and apparently a shmoo is a cartoon animal which only lives to please others and which can be transformed into any product.

Is that how you understand it?

[Kuciwalker]

schmooist is the term I'm using to describe my capitalist system, to keep che from bombarding me with crap about OTHER capitalist systems.

[Az]

Originally posted by skywalker
That's a good point but if you're claiming that communism would only work in a politically unified world...

What about in an unideal situation - hey, you asked me about foreign policy wrt imports from non-scmooist countries

Yes, I did. No, in the military, the decisions would not be democratic by their nature. The military won't be compulsory. Neither this will be the case for regular corporations: I am not an syndicalist.

EDIT: re Azazel, and you didn't answer my other questions

As I said, I am not an syndicalist.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by skywalker


so if I am incredibly talented and put X effort into my work, producing 200 shoes, I get paid as much as someone who puts the same effort into their work but only manages to produce 100 shoes? So you are PUNISHING people with talent?

MAybe, but where does this 'talent' come from? Are you saying that you work harder, well then you get more.
This was called 'storming' in the Soviet System.
Maybe you have bought a machine which makes the production more efficient, but that machine will have to paid off to the one who produced it, at the value of the amount of work put into it.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Azazel
Yes, I did. No, in the military, the decisions would not be democratic by their nature. The military won't be compulsory. Neither this will be the case for regular corporations: I am not an syndicalist.

Ok then, I want Spiffor to answer because you have already seen some of the light

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tripledoc


MAybe, but where does this 'talent' come from? Are you saying that you work harder, well then you get more.
This was called 'storming' in the Soviet System.
Maybe you have bought a machine which makes the production more efficient, but that machine will have to paid off to the one who produced it, at the value of the amount of work put into it.

Look at it another way: I'm a programmer. I am a VERY TALENTED programmer and I, using X effort, write 20,000 lines of code. Someone much less talented than I uses the same amount of effort to write 5,000 lines of code. Neither of us used a machine, and both of us used exactly the same "effort".

[Tripledoc]

Unless you define each line of code as a seperate product of course.