new capitalism vs communism thread

[Kuciwalker]

Spiffor - despite the fact that other groups innovated, the invention of the patent (a capitalist invention if ever there was one) allowed Western civilization to blaze ahead in technology. Thus, innovation occurs more under capitalism, because it is rewarded more.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by skywalker
Spiffor - despite the fact that other groups innovated, the invention of the patent (a capitalist invention if ever there was one) allowed Western civilization to blaze ahead in technology. Thus, innovation occurs more under capitalism, because it is rewarded more.

... Ned?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by skywalker

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.

I am unfortunately too busy to actively participate, but still, here's for you this question: then what?

Even the highly inefficient USSR experienced economic growth. From the point a society has way enough wealth to purvey for everyone, what's the point in pursuing econ growth for the sake of it?

IMO the efficiency problem is secondary. Producing enough goods, and sustaining the rythm, should be sufficient.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Spiffor

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.

Exactly, the problem today is that people have to work crap jobs while they reducate themselves, that is what is not humane. I think people should not need to have a job in college, it distracts from thier learning.

[Spiffor]

Huh? Because of competition, prices will (generally) correspond roughly to the costs of production.

MEEP! If such was the case, please explain me why in the nearly Schmooist US , the profit rate oscillates between 10% and 20% please (and this is with a conservative calculus, rather than the actual confrontation between the company's revenue and the costs incurred).

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.

I took economy classes too, and I know of the economists' rationale. But I have also discovered that the "wonder-variable" that will always predict a human behaviour doesn't exist. To us humans, there are tons of non-economic reasons not to be economically rational.
That's why a system such as the stock market (the epitome of "market forces"), being completely mathematical, is not natural. There is a strong set of rules, and the market price gets dictated by machines computing the bids and offers. Change the programming to tweak the calculation, and you'll have the exact same sheeplish behaviour from stockmarketers, despite the price not being the fabled "perfect" ones.

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.

Yep. But unlike the universe, capitalism needs a power-structure to keep the system in place. Should there be no police, no justice etc. to protect capitalism, it would get destroyed in no time by theft, pillage, etc.

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).

Yep, but the "noise" make it impossible to get a perfect result. And moreover, since capitalism permanently changes (as new products enter the market, new competitors appear, others disappear, etc.), the long-term goal continuously changes. Hence, a capitalist society never reaches said "long term goal", and is in a permanent transition.
So, the long-term reasoning is pretty moot to analyze the reality of capitalism, rather than the wondeful mathematical model of the economists.

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.

You seem not to understand that companies have no power whatsoever on the owners. Only current owners can decide to whom they'll transfer their shares. Besides, in the stock market, everything is anonymous.
Imagine you're the despot of your country, and you decide to nuke it for fun. Unless a revolution overthrows you, you can do as you please. The only difference in a company is that owner cannot be overthrown, because he is protected by a police and a judiciary vastly stronger than whatever force the workers and even the managers could gather.
These people have to take orders from the owner and can do nothing about it. They can see the owner taking the company's tools, the company's computers away, destroying the building, whatever, without doing anything legal about it. Such a thing happened extremely often in Russia as the new owner (profiting from a quick'n'ugly privatization) pillaged what was simply his property, leaving the workers in the crapper.
And such a thing happens very often in our societies, when the company owning a factory decides to sell a factory's capital (machines, building, terrain) for short term money, despite the factory being profitable. Thousands of lifes were wasted because of these *******s

[Pax]

Government of PAX AFRICANUS

Democratic elections-
Party System- Party must recruit X number members to run for executive office.
Parties must have stated positions that do not break basic foundation of society. Freedom Speach, human rights.

Free Press-Press must be unbiased. Candidates are not allowed to advertise when running for positions. Candidates positions will all be stated jointly in news media so that they can be compared. i.e. any speeches are debates will be open to all candidates jointly.

Parties-Parties may be Capitalistic(Pro-business), Socialist(pro=people), or whatever.

Military, Police, Intelligence cannot be democratic, must be outside of politics to avoid coups and corruption. Politicians not allowed to use military for speeches or any political gestures. Must submit to the authority of elected officials but not be used for political gain. laws set up that can cause elected officials to lose their jobs or be arrested if they violate.

Lobbyists- Lobbyists and special interests not allowed only political parties. Since parties not allowed to campaign in usual since. No need for $1000 dinners or donations except to keep organization running.

It's very important to have parties that represent the rights of all including workers, business, and religions so everyone will have representation.

legal system - Police, Lawyers should be eligible for judge. To become a judge you have give up any claim to political party and swear to uphold only the laws of the land. Similar to a religous oath or oath of fealty. But specifically not an oath to a person.

That's a start.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Huh? Because of competition, prices will (generally) correspond roughly to the costs of production.

MEEP! If such was the case, please explain me why in the nearly Schmooist US , the profit rate oscillates between 10% and 20% please (and this is with a conservative calculus, rather than the actual confrontation between the company's revenue and the costs incurred).

I said correspond, not equal there will be a relationship, with the prices being higher.

I took economy classes too, and I know of the economists' rationale. But I have also discovered that the "wonder-variable" that will always predict a human behaviour doesn't exist. To us humans, there are tons of non-economic reasons not to be economically rational.
That's why a system such as the stock market (the epitome of "market forces"), being completely mathematical, is not natural. There is a strong set of rules, and the market price gets dictated by machines computing the bids and offers. Change the programming to tweak the calculation, and you'll have the exact same sheeplish behaviour from stockmarketers, despite the price not being the fabled "perfect" ones.

Those irrational people will be less successful and this is all statistical, not deterministic.

Yep. But unlike the universe, capitalism needs a power-structure to keep the system in place. Should there be no police, no justice etc. to protect capitalism, it would get destroyed in no time by theft, pillage, etc.

Crimes are part of schmooism - fraud and theft (besides all of the normal things like murder and rape) are illegal.

Yep, but the "noise" make it impossible to get a perfect result. And moreover, since capitalism permanently changes (as new products enter the market, new competitors appear, others disappear, etc.), the long-term goal continuously changes. Hence, a capitalist society never reaches said "long term goal", and is in a permanent transition.
So, the long-term reasoning is pretty moot to analyze the reality of capitalism, rather than the wondeful mathematical model of the economists.

So? Evolution never reaches "perfection", either - but the point is that capitalism always tends towards efficiency, in the limit.

You seem not to understand that companies have no power whatsoever on the owners. Only current owners can decide to whom they'll transfer their shares. Besides, in the stock market, everything is anonymous.
Imagine you're the despot of your country, and you decide to nuke it for fun. Unless a revolution overthrows you, you can do as you please. The only difference in a company is that owner cannot be overthrown, because he is protected by a police and a judiciary vastly stronger than whatever force the workers and even the managers could gather.
These people have to take orders from the owner and can do nothing about it. They can see the owner taking the company's tools, the company's computers away, destroying the building, whatever, without doing anything legal about it. Such a thing happened extremely often in Russia as the new owner (profiting from a quick'n'ugly privatization) pillaged what was simply his property, leaving the workers in the crapper.
And such a thing happens very often in our societies, when the company owning a factory decides to sell a factory's capital (machines, building, terrain) for short term money, despite the factory being profitable. Thousands of lifes were wasted because of these *******s

However, companies that allow that - that is, contracts that are set up in such a way that that can occur - will go out of business (in essense they will become extinct). While the problem may have to be continually solved (in the same way that sterile people keep popping up, despite the fact that they are selected against), limited regulation can bring it to a manageable level.

[Kuciwalker]

btw, what does "MEEP" mean?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
However, companies that allow that

Companies are not in power to allow that or disallow that. They are not the ones signing contracts with the owners.
To make an analogy: imagine you sell your house to somebody. This somebody turns out to be an arsonist, and he later burned the house for the thrill of it. Did the house "allow that"?
No, because the house hasn't been the master of its destiny all along. That is exactly the same for a company: the owner can pillage it, and the company can do nothing about it, and could never do a thing about it. The former owner could have done a thing about it, but now the owner is gone and happy with his money

In Schmooism, the owner has the absolute rights on his property, limited only by the law. As such, he could destroy the whole company for all he cares, much like Nero burning Rome, and there will be no consequences for him. This is the danger of letting owners having power: they can basically shut down any production unit, and wrecks tens of lives (if not thousands) on a whim.
Edit: unlike Nero however, the whim can be completely rational: that's about not taking the risk of losing money in the future (even though the company is perfectly healthy at present) when you can made ****loads of immediate money.
And the company that gets wrecked could have never done, at any point in time, anything about it. There is no contract between an owner and his company: the company is the plaything.


Oh, and I thought "MEEP" was the sound of a buzzer in English, when somebody gives the wrong answer at a TV trivia.

[Kuciwalker]

The "company" is a contract. The contract can limit the actions of the "owner". However, I don't see the problem with the owner wrecking the company anyways - surely the workers can work somewhere else?

Oh, and I thought "MEEP" was the sound of a buzzer in English, when somebody gives the wrong answer at a TV trivia.

then

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, and I thought "MEEP" was the sound of a buzzer in English, when somebody gives the wrong answer at a TV trivia.

No, that's a ZZZZT!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
The "company" is a contract. The contract can limit the actions of the "owner".

Why would the owner bother signing a contract with his plaything? Do you sign a contract with your computer? Does it have any way to defend itself if you suddenly want to whack it with a hammer?

The company is not a contract. The company is a terrain, a building, with productive machinery in it (be it computer or machine tools). And people working on this machinery. The company is a "moral person" (as opposed to a "physical person" - well, at least that's the terminology in French, but I guess it's the same in English) that signs contracts with its employees, manager included. But the owner of the company is accountable to no one but himself.
Actually, there are several legislations according to the size of a company: there are companies with unlimited responsiblity: if there is a problem, a failure to pay debts, etc, the owner will be forced to pay until the last dime from his pockets (and may have to sell his house, his clothes, or whatever). Such a legislation applies to very small companies, generally mono-personal.
Societies with limited responsiblity are basically the same principle, except that you can't rip the owner off everything he has. Such legislation applies to small, but not minuscule, companies.
Lastly, big companies are Anonymous societies, where the ownership is supposed to be divided among many people (but it's not mandatory: you may have an Anonymous Society with one person, or one "mother company" having all shares, and everybody knowing who that is). In this case, the owner is completely irresponsible. His company can have billions of debt, he'll never be worried. Useless to say, it can be very interesting to pillage a company and then let it die in a gutter with such a system.

However, I don't see the problem with the owner wrecking the company anyways - surely the workers can work somewhere else?

Tell that to the Siberians who have lost their jobs in the hand of greedy managers. Tell that to the 50-year-old workers who have spent their lives in the company, knowing no other job, and who'll never find a willing employer again. Tell that to these women for whom there is no work left in their branch. Tell that to those people who are left with zero income to feed their family, and who have to find a way to scrap some money, quickly. Tell that to people who entered depression as their world crumbled around them. Tell that to the inhabitants of the village surrounding the factory, who have lost all economic activity.

Yep, tell that to them.

It's fairly easy for the likes of you and me to find work afterwards. We are alone, we have nobody to feed but ourselves, we are young (and hence able to learn a new job), we are well educated, we have parents to shelter us while on the dole.
Those who suffer first from this kind of pillaging, however, aren't as favored as us. They have families to feed. They are usually old or middle aged, and learning is much more difficult at that age. They are poor and have very little time margin to find a new source of income. And they are often despaired because they assisted powerlessly at the destruction of a workplace they held dear.

Yeah, that's so easy to find a new job

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why would the owner bother signing a contract with his plaything?

In order to get other people investing in his company so he can make things that he can't afford at the moment. This is why companies incorporate or join in partnerships,

In this case, the owner is completely irresponsible. His company can have billions of debt, he'll never be worried.

Well when you have many owners, then he will be worried. Looting from a company can get you in hot water in most Western states.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by curtsibling
"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"

@Spiffor:

So is there any kind of lucidity behind this quote by one of your comrades?

I am not saying you are unaware, just unrealistic.

Well if you are interested in the subject here is an article:

In Search of a
SOVIET HOLOCAUST
A 55-Year-Old Famine Feeds the Right

http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/vv.html

I would say that the claim by Ukrainian Nationalists and their rightwing co-conspirationists in the U.S, that the Ukrainian famine was man made, engineered by Stalin and resulted in 7 million dead, rests on shaky ground.

Compared with the mountain of evidence (photage, witness accounts, documents, archeological evidence, and demographic records) which proves the Nazi Holocaust, all the anti-communists have to show are falsified photos showing pictures of the Volga famine of 1921-22 which has never been claimed to be a genocide, and references to references to second hand sources.

The question is, why would anyone falsify evidence to describe such a tragedy? People did die from starvation, perhaps 2 million. However where is the evidence that it was deliberately planned by Stalin or anyone in the Communist cadres in order to suppress the ukrainian nation? Why not bring the actual evidence on the table, if there is such? Why not simply explain the famine on grounds of the civil war like conditions which were the factual conditions. The wanton slaughter of animals by the Ukrainian peasants themselves, so they would not fall into the hands of the communists.

The answer is of course that claiming that Stalin was a cold-blodded killer, means that Communism is bad, means that people are kept in fear of it, and ultimately serves the purpose of Capitalism.

If we then consider that much of the 'evidence' of the evils of communism, has been collected by Ukrainian Nazi-collaborators, and German Nazis, and initially published by virulent anti-communists like Randolph Hearst, inventer of the tabloid newspaper, a disturbing picture emerges.

[DaShi]

But the left has to concede that Stalin was evil. Otherwise, they can no longer compare him to Bush.