Ask a Red, Second Edition

[civver_764]

How do we determine which ideas are good or not? With capitalism I have a lot more freedom into how I can peddle my ideas. I'm not at the mercy of a couple of committees. I can develop stuff on my own and sell it. That's a huge freedom, that I'm not going to give up to be pushed around by some committee

In capitalism you have to pitch your idea to investors so it's not much different.

They don't already. The people who produce it get paid. Entrepreneurship is hugely risky. Most startups fail and you end up losing money. That's why in my view the entrepreneurs should have a reward structure that compliments that risk.

That risk you're talking about is not present in socialism, first of all. Second of all, paying someone less than what the fruits of the labor are actually worth and then pocketing the rest is certainly theft.

I don't think it's unfair that if you can create something amazing that you shouldn't be very handsomely rewarded.

Who says you won't be?

Yeah, and a whole lot more from trying to cram more stuff into cell phones.

Done by paid research teams.

 

[berkut]

That risk you're talking about is not present in socialism, first of all.

.

tell me more about that. in comunism can an individual start an enterpreneur or is it always the state? and when he starts an enterpreneur how can he guarantee that people will want to buy his product and do it for the price of his work not their necessity??

 

[Perfection]

In capitalism you have to pitch your idea to investors so it's not much different.

No it's quite different, because:
1. There are many many many investors
2. You can self invest or form small partnerships.

You have much more options then a couple commities

That risk you're talking about is not present in socialism, first of all.

Actually it is, it's just covered by the community, which makes it vulnerable to exploiters.

Second of all, paying someone less than what the fruits of the labor are actually worth and then pocketing the rest is certainly theft.

Right, so when the fruits of my labor are worth billions of dollars, not paying me that is theft, we are agreed.

Done by paid research teams.

In capitalist enterprises...

 

[civver_764]

tell me more about that. in comunism can an individual start an enterpreneur or is it always the state? and when he starts an enterpreneur how can he guarantee that people will want to buy his product and do it for the price of his work not their necessity??

1) There is no state in communism.
2) I don't quite understand the rest of your question.

No it's quite different, because:
1. There are many many many investors
2. You can self invest or form small partnerships.

You have much more options then a couple commities

A couple commitees? You could travel all around the world looking for a community to accept you if you wanted. Plus you would have an easier time getting "approval" because it wouldn't be based on profitability.

Alternatively if you think you've saved up enough you could just stop working yourself and completely ignore the communities.

Actually it is, it's just covered by the community, which makes it vulnerable to exploiters.

What do you mean?

Right, so when the fruits of my labor are worth billions of dollars, not paying me that is theft, we are agreed.

Thinking up a new product is not worth billions of dollars.

I'm sure there are plenty of people willing to research and develop without wanting that much, in fact I know there are because they exist today.

In capitalist enterprises...

But they aren't entrepaneurs and they aren't getting billions of dollars.

 

[lutzj]

Thinking up a new product is not worth billions of dollars.

I'm sure there are plenty of people willing to research and develop without wanting that much, in fact I know there are because they exist today.

Putting plastic pieces together on an assembly line is not worth an even share of a company's profits.

I'm sure there are plenty of people willing to gather and assemble without wanting that much; in fact, I know there are, because they exist today.

 

[civver_764]

Putting plastic pieces together on an assembly line is not worth an even share of a company's profits.

I never said everyone gets paid the same.

I'm sure there are plenty of people willing to gather and assemble without wanting that much; in fact, I know there are, because they exist today.

Missing the point entirely.

 

[lutzj]

I never said everyone gets paid the same.

Missing the point entirely.

Could you redirect me to the point? It seems that creators of intellectual property are immune to "exploitation" because they are "willing to research and develop without wanting that much."

 

[civver_764]

Could you redirect me to the point? It seems that creators of intellectual property are immune to "exploitation" because they are "willing to research and develop without wanting that much."

My point was not that the researchers are free from exploitation today, my point is that researchers do not necessarily create technological advancement out of desire for profit.

 

[lutzj]

My point was not that the researchers are free from exploitation today, my point is that researchers do not necessarily create technological advancement out of desire for profit.

But Perfection does. Isn't he entitled to billions of dollars for a (sufficiently) good idea?

 

[Traitorfish]

If by labor individually, do I then get the choice to sell my labor to someone else at a price I think is fair?

That depends on the system of distribution, but in a market system, yes, certainly.

If someone runs a shop out of their garage assembling computers for gaming hobbyists and he wants someone to handle the sales and technical support while he focuses on assembling the computers, could I choose to work for him?

If you wanted to, but it wouldn't be Syndicalism. It would just be Capitalism, co-existing alongside Syndicalism, as it does now, and can be expected to do for the foreseeable future.

Putting plastic pieces together on an assembly line is not worth an even share of a company's profits.

How many times do we have to explain that Socialism does not pursue equality of result? It's a crude strawmen, and one that needs to abandoned immediately if any insightful questions are to be asked.

 

[lutzj]

How many times do we have to explain that Socialism does not pursue equality of result? It's a crude strawmen, and one that needs to abandoned immediately if any insightful questions are to be asked.

Are you suggesting that 100 laborers and 10 managers/executives would vote to give the executives significantly higher pay?

 

[Traitorfish]

Are you suggesting that 100 laborers and 10 managers/executives would vote to give the executives significantly higher pay?

Yes, because this is what happens now. Worker's cooperatives do exist, you know.

 

[civver_764]

But Perfection does. Isn't he entitled to billions of dollars for a (sufficiently) good idea?

How does that follow at all? I think I should get paid billions of dollars for working the drive-thru at McDonalds, am I entitled to that?

 

[Ajidica]

Given that an immediate switch to Socialism from Capitalism would be jarring to say the least, a more likely result is a transition to SocDem and so on until Socialism. For the average person, quality of life gets better and the worst of Capitalism is removed. Now, how will the Communist leadership get the average person motivated to support the complete transition to Communism? The average person probably would be fairly happy with a SocDem state and not be overly concerned with 'ownership of the means of production' and the 'emancipation of the proletariat' when they don't feel the harshness of capitalism.
However, since the class relations are unchanged, the bourgeoisie still have a fair amount of political power and will try to legislate back to capitalism, probably with some degree of support from the average person.
So, given this state of affairs, what is to stop Communist/Socialist ideology from being basicaly consigned to an eternal opposition party status?

Or should the Communists/Socialists say to hell with the risks and stage an October Revolution, hopefully with better results?

 

[Karalysia]

nvm delete

 

[Traitorfish]

Given that an immediate switch to Socialism from Capitalism would be jarring to say the least, a more likely result is a transition to SocDem and so on until Socialism. For the average person, quality of life gets better and the worst of Capitalism is removed.

An alternative option, or one that can be combined with the above, is Syndicalism, the gradual take-over of production by organised labour. Socialism should not be understood as fundamentally dependent on the state.

Now, how will the Communist leadership get the average person motivated to support the complete transition to Communism? The average person probably would be fairly happy with a SocDem state and not be overly concerned with 'ownership of the means of production' and the 'emancipation of the proletariat' when they don't feel the harshness of capitalism.

That is usually where class conciousness is presumed to play a part. Even in the softest form of capitalism, the majority of workers are still exploited, and all workers are, to some degree, held under the sway of the Capitalist class. The trick is for the workers to realise that their investment in the Capitalist system is ultimately counter to their own interest, which is objectively true for the majority, and, if one takes a Libertarian line, true for all.

Hence the importance of a dictatorship of the proletariat to act as a reveloutionary vanguard to safeguard the reveloution and prevent it from being destroyed by counterreveloutionary elements.

This is where I need a picture of Noam Chomsky looking horrified with the text "Do Not Want".

 

[Joecoolyo]

How does that follow at all? I think I should get paid billions of dollars for working the drive-thru at McDonalds, am I entitled to that?

Working at McDonald's isn't the same as discovering/researching/inventing new stuff.

Say Perfection invents a satellite that can scratch your ass from space, should he not be allowed to reap the benefits of this possible billion dollar industry?

 

[RedRalph]

Say Perfection invents a satellite that can scratch your ass from space, should he not be allowed to reap the benefits of this possible billion dollar industry?

Maybe, if he mines the raw materials, transports and assembles them, maintains the site, builds the site, does security, grows the food he needs while doing this, cycles around on an excersize bike to generate the electricity, single handedly launches it, etc etc etc. Otherwise he is reliant on the work of many other people, almost all working class.

 

[Karalysia]

nvm delete

 

[Joecoolyo]

Maybe, if he mines the raw materials, transports and assembles them, maintains the site, builds the site, does security, grows the food he needs while doing this, cycles around on an excersize bike to generate the electricity, single handedly launches it, etc etc etc. Otherwise he is reliant on the work of many other people, almost all working class.

Yes, but then again, without that invention, all those people would be out of a job.

And thus, we end up in a circle.

EDIT: Also, all those people doing those jobs (shipping, building, etc.) came in later, to a steady, risk fee pay. While Perfection, put himself on the line with this invention, and took a risk starting up his business. And now because of it will probably have to wait 5 or 6 years before he can actually see a cent of profit from it ( that is unless it becomes a fad or instantly popular, which most of the time, isn't the case).