A socialist alternative to a vcommand economy

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
If people cannot coerce others, how can there be oppression?

I'll use the words of one of our prominent Libertarians himself:

Originally posted by Berzerker
Liberty or freedom - the absence of necessity, coercion or constraint in choice or action

In economic deals, there is very often a part of necessity, i.e either you accept the job you are offered, or you cannot sustain the existence of yourself and your loved ones. If there is no welfare that offsets the "necessity" part of it (which is the most spectacular proposal of the libs), the weak is basically forced to accept what the strong suggests, since starving is not a valid choice.

[Kuciwalker]

By necessity he means threat of force.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
A state owned computer graphics card? I'd definetly buy the private alternative . Also, if you are going to go into little things like that most of the economy would be state run and semi-planned, which is what you wanted to avoid.

I mentioned "if it was vital for the economy". If there is a shortage of basic graphic cards, the State should build a plant, because computers can't work without one.

If somebody wants to create a plant of gaming graphic cards, they go to the investment bank where they explain it is a viable project, and get the credits for investment.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
By necessity he means threat of force.

I don't know. And it certainly isn't implied in the French word "nécessité" which I use to understand the word he used.

And the threat of starvation is exactly as oppressive as the threat of force. When somebody tells you not to _________ or he'll shoot you, he gives you a choice. Exactly as somebody who gives you a choice between ________ or starving.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I mentioned "if it was vital for the economy". If there is a shortage of basic graphic cards, the State should build a plant, because computers can't work without one.

Why not have the 'market' work out the shortage. There may be plenty of reasons for a 'shortage'. "Vital to the economy" is a very murky term.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why not have the 'market' work out the shortage. There may be plenty of reasons for a 'shortage'. "Vital to the economy" is a very murky term.

"Vital to the economy" is a murky term indeed, and it has to be defined (and constantly re-defined) by the political system. The political system absolutely has to be democratic, otherwise the economic system (socialism) is bound to failure, I cannot stress enough how essential democracy is in the system I envision.

There can be a 'market' to work out the shortage in every area that isn't vital for the economy, i.e in every area that is not loaded with positive externalities. The main difference between market socialism and market capitalism is that the power doesn't rests by the shareholder, but by the worker. And that capital is found in alternative forms than shareholding.
Bank is the obvious. I still don't know whether private loans (do you call them "obligations" in English too?) should be wishable, given that the loaner is only in for the money, and doesn't get any 'political' say in the company.

[Dinner]

Banks.
I am personally a big proponent of State-owned investment banks, which provide cheap loans upon estimating the business model.

But then you have politicians making business decisions instead of investors. Examine the last Asian economic crisis to see why politicians do a poor job of alocating ecomic resources. They tend to funnel money to their friends and cronies plus politics tends to over power common sense. The company is losing money and needs to cut costs but the politician wants to reduce unemployment so he can get reelected. Will the politician let the company lay off workers and restructor so it can once again be profitable or will he use his influence to force them to hire unnecisary additional workers? History shows the politicians tend towards the later.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
But then you have politicians making business decisions instead of investors. Examine the last Asian economic crisis to see why politicians do a poor job of alocating ecomic resources. They tend to funnel money to their friends and cronies plus politics tends to over power common sense. The company is losing money and needs to cut costs but the politician wants to reduce unemployment so he can get reelected. Will the politician let the company lay off workers and restructor so it can once again be profitable or will he use his influence to force them to hire unnecisary additional workers? History shows the politicians tend towards the later.

To which I could reply:

"In capitalism, you have speculators making business decisions instead of entrepreneurs. Examine the last tech economic crisis to see why speculators do a poor job at allocating economic resources"... I could also tell you of many viable companies that have been pillaged by their new owners, thus being forced by the shareholders to close down.

Point is: I am perfectly aware a Socialist system will not and cannot be the epitome of efficiency in allocating resources. Neither is shareholder capitalism btw. As Imran pointed out, shareholders are a necessity in current capitalism in order to get capital. But (this is my interpretation now), it certainly doesn't imply that they're any good in managing the company.

I personally believe that highest efficiency can be found with an "enlightened despot" at the helm of the company, i.e. someone who wishes the company to be viable, who uses his power remorselessly in this regard, and who knows how the company works. A hard-working entrepreneur would be the most efficient boss in a company.

The "power to the entrepreneur" doesn't exist, neither in corporate capitalism, nor in socialism. And actually, I don't think enlightened despotism is the best system (everything being taken into account), despite being the most efficient. That's because it often comes with a mini-hitler behaviour, where there is very little respect toward the workers, and because it is a highly personalized political system (i.e a short lived one).

Socialism bears inefficiencies in the allocation of resources, similar to capitalism. The most important question, to me, is which one will bring a better life to the people. And socialism (democratic socialism, as I said I can't stress it enough) is the one by far, IMHO.

[Az]

If state corporations can manufacture missiles equaling in quality and often better than private ones, I see no reason why they couldn't manufacture a Graphics card, TV, shampoo, etc.

But then you have politicians making business decisions instead of investors.

You're assuming that politicians are working in government owned banks. A common error of planned economy opponents.

[Jon Miller]

you could also have the coops pay for the employees retirement

so if you invest in your companies future, you will have a good retirement (likely), if you don't, and your company goes under, you will have a bad retirement

Jon miller

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Get a job then.

How will that end welfare? It's embedded into the system. There are more people looking for work than there are jobs.

[Jon Miller]

I really like the idea of giving up the stock market and going to employee owned coops

te only concern with that is employees looking to the companies long term future, but that can be somewat fixed by their living being dependent on it

but of course, more successful Coops will pay their employees more, so there is reason to make your Coop successful now, and in the future

Jon Miller

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Azazel
If state corporations can manufacture missiles equaling in quality and often better than private ones, I see no reason why they couldn't manufacture a Graphics card, TV, shampoo, etc.

Well, this post reminds me of Sikander's. The State owns missile factories because it demands missiles, just like Sikander's community owns a hospoital because it demands health service. Since the State uses what it produces, it makes a good job at producing it. I don't expect Statesmen pouring money in a high tech 3D graphic card or in a uber-shampoo, simply because the State doesn't use it (or doesn't need any technological progress in this area).

The main problem of the USSR was its inability to create a consumer economy. There are so many different products a consumer might want, which in turn need gazillions of subproducts to be made, that a planned economy can't do the job properly.
Especially since the many useless things a consumer might want (such as, blech, computer games) cannot be conciliated with the imperatives of efficiency the planification lives for.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I really like the idea of giving up the stock market and going to employee owned coops

Except, if coops were profitable and effective, wouldn't we already see them in abundance?

Obviously they aren't.

[Jon Miller]

the system keeps them down

because they aren't profitable for the people who matter to the government, the rich

Jon Miller