Define communism for dum 'ol Lancer

[Velociryx]

Well, in that, at least, you have little to fear. As a group, it should be clear by now that the reds, as a group (at least the ones we hear from here on 'poly) are utterly unable to form a consensus about WHAT they want, precisely, and if you question them on particulars you get rosey assurances that "things will be different next time," without bothering to go into detail as to HOW.

Until that happens, and until a LEADER emerges to focus their collective energies on a common vision, the chances of a "revolution" occuring are exactly nil.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

You're the only one saying no one will be able to own crayons.



I love the way your mind works, Kid....the quote of mine you referenced had EXACTLY NOTHING to do with your comment. It's brilliant as a deception tactic, although I'm not sure you meant it as such. But that just makes it funnier!

-=Vel=-

[MrFun]

I think Kid is depcreciating the importance that capitalists have, when it comes to ownership of crayons.




But that's not to say that Che and others are arguing that they would take your crayons away.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I advocate a regulated market economy. The communes are free to charge the prices they want (unless a major inflation crisis demands a regulation in this particular area, which I hope not).

An artificial creation of money will lead to inflation, just like it does in today's market economies.

Generally speaking, I don't think the citizens of a Spifforist utopia are suckers for punishment. I think that they are entitled to get all their basic needs, that they must be empowered where hierarchy exist (both in the political and in the economic areas), and that they have a right to enjoy life. You seem to want a system where the citizens are here to satisfy the needs of the system (which is why you almost never use the carrot, only the stick). I don't.

If farmers can grow and charge what they want, does that mean that prices for food are unregulated?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Velociryx
3) The government is democratically elected, with each level responsible to the level below it, with instant recall for all officials. Campaigns are publicly financed.

Democratically elected?! So...you're gonna wait until you convince people to VOTE to give up all their "productive property" of their own free will. Methinks the communists have a LOOOOOOOONG wait ahead of them. Or, does the democratically elected part start AFTER the "revolution" (which, is it too big a presumption to assume will not be bloodless...I don't want to be accused of offending anyone's gentle sensibilities by making inappropriate assumptions here)


-=Vel=-

You failed to account that for the practice that anyone who does not give up his or her property is a "rebel." Their propery is confisicated, not received voluntarily. But for their rebellion, they face the "consequences."

[Ned]

Also, a communist system that must "progress" to a stateless society must either do so by operation of some "invisible hand," or do so by coercion. Now, assuming there is no invisible hand that would get people to act illogically, there will have to be coercion. But who coerces? The government. But, if the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, there will be no coercion by definition.

Logically, therefor, communists who speak of an eventual statelist society cannot advocate or tolerate true democracy. The "Party" is the ultimate authority that really controls everything, just like the Mullah-ocracy in Iran.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
If farmers can grow and charge what they want, does that mean that prices for food are unregulated?

Yes. The State has a direct regulation power over the prices charged by the companies it owns (utilities), but not on the other prices.

In case of a grave price crisis, the State would ctake steps for price control, but that's no different with what the nowadays' States do in this regard.

In order to make sure that the people can afford their food, the strategy will be one of welfare, instead of one of price control.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I'm a socialist, not a communist. The only reason why I use the word "Communist" is only because I'm a member of the Communist party.

I consider that the main cause for the blatant income inequality in today's societies is because the capitalists control the means of production. If control was in the hands of the workers, the workers would definitely not agree with the huge income disparities decided by their self-serving owners.

The main reason why I'm socialist instead of a social-democrat (I was a social democrat earlier in my political background) is because in a social democracy, the great equalizer is the State. As soon as the social-democratic State weakens, income disparity resumes. This is what we're witnessing in the European countries.

A commune system would be a system where income unequality is directly dealt with the first concerned (the workers), instead of being managed by the State.

I actually fancy thinking of a realistic economic system, where the people would be better off. This involves a dose of pragmatism. Since wealth doesn't grow on trees, you have to find a way so that wealth goes from its owners to those who need it to invest it.

There are two ways to do so: 1. tax the hell out of people, so that they can't have their life savings, but instead, all the savings are in the hands of the State. I see it as a terrible, punitive idea. It would fit Kidicious prime, but it wouldn't fit a humane society. At least not durng my lifetime. Or 2. Allow the people to save money, and make these savings available as a source of capital for other people willing to invest in something productive.

My main aim with my platform is a better wealth distribution, while keeping enough incentive to create wealth in the first place (the wealth creation bout is something many Commies don't think about enough). The secondary aim is empowerment (empowerment is a primary means tho).

As for the comment "I'm a socialist, not a commie", it's simple. Let's look at Lenin's policies when he tolerated some dose of capitalism for Russia's economic reconstruction. He thought it as a transitional state, in order to reach communism. I OTOH, don't believe in communism, I don't want to reach it. I'm perfectly OK with such a "transitional" economy. If a functional socialist economy means that there is a little niche for capitalists, then so be it. In my society, the capitalist plunder of wealth produced by others will be marginal. Much better than in today's world, where it's the universal law.

Not bad. But you still have to recognize that your state businesses will be drains on the national economy to the extent they have foreign competition. They will, as do all monopolies, produce lower-quality products at much higher cost.

Second, if you tax productive people into relative poverty, they will simply leave. I have met many a Europeaner who say the reason for their being in the US was this.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


Under a system of anarcho-syndicalists, the decision is democratic. Under the Marxist notion, the proleteriat (hence the decision is also democratic), under Leninism, the Party (which means its either a democratic choice, or a dictatorial choice, depending on the make up of the party.

2. Public Recognition? Nebulous "perks"? Longer vacations?

Hell, if I can do little and get paid the same as the guy that works hard for the extra vacation, I'd do it.

But you might never get a better apartment, since in theory those could be reserved for the people who actually work hard. Also, no one ever said anything about equal pay.

GePap, so long as a any decision made without law, it is a dictate and the system a dictatorship, even if one elects that "dictator."

[Ned]

The bottom line, again, is that the more one inspects communism, the more one is impressed with its sheer impossibility as it operates at all levels without freedom of contract, without a market. It cannot be possible that people "really" believe in such a system, therefor, their true motives for advocating it are suspect.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Yes. The State has a direct regulation power over the prices charged by the companies it owns (utilities), but not on the other prices.

In case of a grave price crisis, the State would ctake steps for price control, but that's no different with what the nowadays' States do in this regard.

In order to make sure that the people can afford their food, the strategy will be one of welfare, instead of one of price control.

That is not the communism I understand. That is why you are, in truth, a capitalist who wants to take the "rough edges" off the capitalist system, i.e., a traditional liberal in the mold of its founding father, Jesus Christ.

[Spiffor]

Not bad. But you still have to recognize that your state businesses will be drains on the national economy to the extent they have foreign competition. They will, as do all monopolies, produce lower-quality products at much higher cost.

1. This is not always true. The French rail system is a typical example of a State monopoly that is very good at what it's doing.

2. The State will only directly manage utilities, i.e the kind of activity from which everybody benefits. This includes the traditional duties (police, justice, military), education, material infrastructure, and financial infrastructure.
These activities benefit everybody, and they benefit the State in the end in the form of additional growth and tax revenue (nobody enjoys doing business in a police-less country where you could have all your stuff easily stolen - nobody likes to do business in an education-less country, where you can't find clerks, chemists, or computer experts that could work in your company)

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
That is not the communism I understand. That is why you are, in truth, a capitalist who wants to take the "rough edges" off the capitalist system, i.e., a traditional liberal in the mold of its founding father, Jesus Christ.

Depends on your definition of capitalism. If you have a randian definition, where capitalism = free market, then I'm a mild capitalist by that definition, considering that my economic system leaves a large room to the (regulated) market.

If you use the definion of capitalism as the "private property of the means of production", which is the one I use, then I'm not a capitalist. Because in the Spifforist utopia, the notion of "private ownership of the means of production" will be as absurd as the concept of "private ownership over a person" today.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Not bad. But you still have to recognize that your state businesses will be drains on the national economy to the extent they have foreign competition. They will, as do all monopolies, produce lower-quality products at much higher cost.

1. This is not always true. The French rail system is a typical example of a State monopoly that is very good at what it's doing.

2. The State will only directly manage utilities, i.e the kind of activity from which everybody benefits. This includes the traditional duties (police, justice, military), education, material infrastructure, and financial infrastructure.
These activities benefit everybody, and they benefit the State in the end in the form of additional growth and tax revenue (nobody enjoys doing business in a police-less country where you could have all your stuff easily stolen - nobody likes to do business in an education-less country, where you can't find clerks, chemists, or computer experts that could work in your company)

Rail and Utilities? These are so-called natural monopolies anyway. The problem you have, Spiff, is that you called for a lot more than that. You want all big companies to be owned by the State, IIRC. To the extent they make products and do not provide services, they will have foreign competition and will suffer as I described and be a drain on the state.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Depends on your definition of capitalism. If you have a randian definition, where capitalism = free market, then I'm a mild capitalist by that definition, considering that my economic system leaves a large room to the (regulated) market.

If you use the definion of capitalism as the "private property of the means of production", which is the one I use, then I'm not a capitalist. Because in the Spifforist utopia, the notion of "private ownership of the means of production" will be as absurd as the concept of "private ownership over a person" today.

Spiff, as I said, your system suffers greatly to the extent you do not allow for competition in producing goods and services. As well, to the extent you overtax, you people will simply migrate. This is a formula for rapid decline. It is not an accident that Castro's Cuba saw its per capita income plummet by 90% after the introduction of socialism.