Ask a Red, Second Edition

[Perfection]

Why should they get that and why should I even want to top that? The product itself does not make the million dollar company, it's the people who make it, market it, etc. There's no reason they shouldn't get a more equitable share of the rewards.

Yeah there is, they didn't sacrifice large sections of their time and money to develop their company. They weren't working on this in their basement not getting paid for years putting it together. They didn't make the risk! They came in later receiving a steady paycheck.

And the guy who made the product in the first place would be rewarded with extra luxuries(or extra currency if that still exists), probably equal to the amount he could've made working somewhere else at the time plus some. The community would love him as well.

Keep in mind we're talking about like .00000001% of the population here..

No we're not. I'm not talking about just Bill Gates and Steve Jobs here, but entrepreneurs in general large and small. The guys with hundred thousand dollar companies, as well as hundred billion dollar companies.

Because the nature of the capitalist relationship is fundamentally wrong. Living conditions in modern social democracies might be acceptable(although certainly not in the third world where western corporations have moved their industrial base to), but should we not try to make society even better?

What's wrong about it?

Plus I question the ability of the state to provide such living standards.

If the state can't do that doesn't that preclude the ability of communism/socialism to actually function?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Under Communism and/or Socialism, what would happen to stock portfolios?

They would cease, as would speculation.

Civver stated private property to primarily refer to the physical factories and the machines within them, but what about the infrastructure of business - its shares?

Shares reflect ownership of the business. They will be entirely and only held by its employees, though I imagine their nature might change.

Since shares are voting rights/profit rights, would they be taken away to put that wealth in the hands of the workers instead?

See above.

Why do we need to fundamentally change the economic order of things?

Could not we simply set some lower level living standards and ensure through social programs that said standards are being met while retaining a mostly capitalist structure?

What would be so terrible about that?

Because at the end of the day, the wealthy are still in power, still run things, and still want as much money as possible. They want to keep other people poor, because wealth is power, and if others do well it is a threat to their own power and privilege. It is not about living standards, it is about ending oppression. Only by removing the imposed hierarchy of capitalism can that problem be answered.

How closely would you say you adhere to Marxism? Are there any areas where you gladly deviate from Marx?

I have my differences with him. In particular, I think he is wrong about the way to deal with dissolution of the family.

Did you miss my previous question or did I do something wrong?

I must have missed it. I am only human after all.

I too am curious as to what rewards an individual can gain without breaking the communist system? Truly in a classless society you can't be rewarded with anything, that would cause inequality. Why would anyone strive to be better if everyone already gets the most out of life?

You aren't going to "break" the communist system by winning a reward, provided that you earned it. What would be restricted would be the ability to keep the products of other peoples' labor without their consent.

I'm a Red too!

Added.

Why are you so woefully impaired of the Russian language despite being a Red?

(friendly trolling)

I was at the head of the one semester of Russian I took!

What would be the size of political units then? Local (city-sized, I'd say) communes, or can they band into larger ones? If they can band into larger ones, how would they do decision-making efficiently?

I don't know.

Perhaps the chance of the transition spreading to other countries may help with the time issue a bit.

I think it is an issue of changing perspectives and attitudes, something that changes really mostly between generations.

Even if it has the chance to do the opposite (i.e. install a more authoritarian and oppressive regime)?

Yes. I don't think Americans are so willing to sit back and accept a dictator, especially if we are at the stage of things where these events are transpiring.

I suppose it may have been too premature to have attempted the transition, considering all these factors.

On the contrary, it was then or never.

How does this workplace democracy work? The average factory worker (the people that are, by far, the greatest population in our plant) are absolutely incompetent to make any large scale decisions. Direct democracy or proportional representation would be a recipe for failure. The only democratic system I could see having a chance of working would be similar to the US Senate where every department gets a representative regardless of it's size.

It would not be corporation-wide. It would be unit-wide. Imagine the committee system vastly expanded. So it would not be the entirety of Burger King employees deciding every single thing in the company, it would be the employees of the Burger King at the corner deciding how to split their profits, or who to hire and fire, what new equipment to get, how to spend surplus $, et al. For corporations to work, I imagine there would be "layers" of democracy, so to speak. In fact, it is perfectly imaginable that the corporate committee structure might stay nearly entirely the same, with its actions towards pay rates restricted by law.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Speaking as someone who find the thought of electing police and judges to be quite alien, I have to say that I'm not very comfortable with the idea. When people have to be popular to keep their jobs, they may easily be swayed to act in a way that is popular, but not necessarily just nor right.

That is perhaps a risk. But I am more worried about someone who is completely unaccountable to the district he patrols.

Would a communist society lack a bureaucracy to hire and mange police, judges and other civil servants?

I'm sure they could have it.

Why?

Because the worker is technically in control of his means of production.

Hope that isn't to broad a question (I would like to second SS-18's question if so).

If you'd like me to be more specific:
Where does the lines between one-man/small enterprise and large corporation go?

When it employs more than one person.

My dad started for himself a few years ago, and last year hired a recently graduated new guy to help him. He's been training the new guy and making sure he knows what he's doing, and while the new guy earns really well (my dad isn't very good at being an evil corporate overlord I suppose), my dad still keep the company's profits. Would that be wrong in a communist society?

Yes, if the fellow he is training is helping him to make that money. If he was hired as a tutor then that is different.

If not, what if my dad hires one more, and yet another one, and so on - when does it become a problem?

When he denies them equal say in the running of things, including profit division.

If it is wrong, then how would you suggest that my dad and the new guy split the profits?

How they agree to. It is perfectly conceivable that the new guy (or guys) decide that your father is deserving of a bigger share due to his bigger contribution, but that is a decision that they must make.

Considering that it is my dad that runs the company, and the only reason they actually get contracts is because of my dad's contacts and reputation from his working life so far, and their extreme difference in experience, it would seem quite silly to split the profits fifty-fifty...

See above.

If your father needs them to make the money he does, then he does them wrong by denying them democracy, and not paying them in kind. If he doesn't need them, then that's bad business practice to hire them.

The argument for democracy in the workplace is the same as for democracy in politics: everyone deserves an equal say in the making of policies that govern their lives. The fellows your father employs are just as dependent, perhaps even more so, on the success of the business and its profit-making abilities as your father is.

 

[civ-addicted]

Just a some basic questions (maybe they have been posted before):
What makes you think that communism works next time? Is there a good reason why such totalitarian regimes won't be there again? And who will clean up the mess afterwards?

 

[Cheetah]

How they agree to. It is perfectly conceivable that the new guy (or guys) decide that your father is deserving of a bigger share due to his bigger contribution, but that is a decision that they must make.

What if there are only two people in the company, and they do not agree on how to split the profits?

And is it not also conceivable that if you have 10 people working in a company, where one of them makes 30% of the production, and the 9 others make 70% of the production combined, that the 9 would just as easily vote to split the profits with 10% to each?

The fellows your father employs are just as dependent, perhaps even more so, on the success of the business and its profit-making abilities as your father is.

But it was my father who founded and invested in the business. The other employees can just as easily go to other businesses to work or even start their own businesses.

But to expand a bit on this: Let's say some guy has been running his business for half a decade, and the company now has $500,000 on a corporate bank account, which has been generated from the profits. If this guy hires a new guy to work with him, would you then think it right that both persons will have an equal say in what to do with the company and the stored profits?

 

[Cu Chulainn]

It would not be corporation-wide. It would be unit-wide. Imagine the committee system vastly expanded. So it would not be the entirety of Burger King employees deciding every single thing in the company, it would be the employees of the Burger King at the corner deciding how to split their profits, or who to hire and fire, what new equipment to get, how to spend surplus $, et al. For corporations to work, I imagine there would be "layers" of democracy, so to speak. In fact, it is perfectly imaginable that the corporate committee structure might stay nearly entirely the same, with its actions towards pay rates restricted by law.

So what happens when the employees decide to award all the profits to themselves and fire the manager? It seems that this system would give the least valuable (read: most easily replaceable) employees more power than those who have more specialization simply by sheer numbers. What limits would be in place to keep the lower level employees of a company from enslaving the upper portion?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Just a some basic questions (maybe they have been posted before):
What makes you think that communism works next time? Is there a good reason why such totalitarian regimes won't be there again? And who will clean up the mess afterwards?

There was no "first time."

What if there are only two people in the company, and they do not agree on how to split the profits?

Then they're screwed.

And is it not also conceivable that if you have 10 people working in a company, where one of them makes 30% of the production, and the 9 others make 70% of the production combined, that the 9 would just as easily vote to split the profits with 10% to each?

Yes it is, which is why I suggested legislation limiting the wage of the highest paid worker in a company to x times the pay of the lowest paid person in that company.

At any rate, a tyranny of the majority is preferable to a tyranny of the minority, which is what we have now.

But it was my father who founded and invested in the business. The other employees can just as easily go to other businesses to work or even start their own businesses.

No, no they can't.

By the way, I think you are missing the point of cooperative enterprises: they won't just be run cooperatively, but they will, by necessity, have to be begun cooperatively. Since, as you have noticed, why would someone begin a business knowing that when they expand it beyond themselves they will lose control?

But to expand a bit on this: Let's say some guy has been running his business for half a decade, and the company now has $500,000 on a corporate bank account, which has been generated from the profits. If this guy hires a new guy to work with him, would you then think it right that both persons will have an equal say in what to do with the company and the stored profits?

Yes. But again, I don't see why we can't have special measures protecting corporate accounts from this sort of thing.

So what happens when the employees decide to award all the profits to themselves and fire the manager?

You don't seem to get it. There won't be a manager.

It seems that this system would give the least valuable (read: most easily replaceable) employees more power than those who have more specialization simply by sheer numbers. What limits would be in place to keep the lower level employees of a company from enslaving the upper portion?

Why shouldn't they have more power? There are more of them. There wouldn't be managers and nonsense like that. People can run their affairs themselves, they're not children just because they're poor.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

You don't seem to get it. There won't be a manager.

There has to be someone in charge, though. When two workers have a dispute there must be someone there with the authority to resolve it, there's not always time to take the issue to a bloody committee.

Why shouldn't they have more power? There are more of them. There wouldn't be managers and nonsense like that. People can run their affairs themselves, they're not children just because they're poor.

Because they're replaceable. There are people at my plant that have skills that take literally YEARS to develop. Are you're telling me they should have less pull than the unskilled line workers because there's only a few of them? Why even bother going to school under such a system?

 

[Traitorfish]

How does this workplace democracy work? The average factory worker (the people that are, by far, the greatest population in our plant) are absolutely incompetent to make any large scale decisions. Direct democracy or proportional representation would be a recipe for failure. The only democratic system I could see having a chance of working would be similar to the US Senate where every department gets a representative regardless of it's size.

The same way that it works now, although perhaps more thorough in the democratisation of larger entities.

Socialism: It's a sneaky one!

By the way, I think you are missing the point of cooperative enterprises: they won't just be run cooperatively, but they will, by necessity, have to be begun cooperatively.

Which is not to say that they could not begin by taking over existing places of business, as many have begun as just that. It simply means that they must begin their life as cooperative enterprises by thoroughly engaging with this model, rather than somehow simply sliding sideways into cooperativism.

You don't seem to get it. There won't be a manager.

To elaborate, there may still be coordinatory personnel when and as necessary, but their role would differ in that they would serve more to ensure efficient cooperation than to dictate activity; a chairman, rather than an officer. It would an administrative position, really, rather than a "managerial" one as traditionally understood.

If the state can't do that doesn't that preclude the ability of communism/socialism to actually function?

No; Socialism is not necessarily authoritarian-statist, and communism is, by definition, Anarchistic. Most contemporary forms- and, I believe, all of those which are actively advocated on this forum- rely far more heavily on public involvement in their own life and livelihood than on the diktats of any centralised state bureaucracy.

 

[MobBoss]

There was no "first time."

Not sure what you mean here....is it that previous communist governments werent really communist? Can you explain the context of your comment for us?

 

[Traitorfish]

Not sure what you mean here....is it that previous communist governments werent really communist? Can you explain the context of your comment for us?

He means that Marxist Communism has never before been attempted, merely Marxist Socialism, which is a distinct system. Neither the USSR, the PRC, nor any of their affiliates claimed to be operating under a system of Communism, merely to be adhering to Communist ideology.

 

[amadeus]

Well, Norodom Sihanouk is close.

We can only conclude that support for monarchism + communism = bat-turd insane.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Yes, but it seems to me to be an attempt to sidestep the question. You can ignore the distinction between Socialism and Communism in this, because the common feature is the same: People who believed in Communist/Socialist Ideology were running the government, and the result were, by most accounts, largely disasterous.
This seems to be the great problem for Marxist (or other socialist theoreticians) to solve. Why did this happen so consistently? It seems to me that there was an inherent flaw in Socialist thought somewhere, and at a certainly early level, considering that wide varieties of non-compromising socialism continuously saw the exact same patterns. Differences in economics have been proposed, but differences in time certainly would account for that.
Simply put, without looking at just the Soviet Union, why did Marxist insurrections lead to ruination, and, by your own definition, fail so consistently?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

There has to be someone in charge, though. When two workers have a dispute there must be someone there with the authority to resolve it, there's not always time to take the issue to a bloody committee.

If that is found to be true, then he will be elected. I worked in a kitchen once that operated on this concept. We picked the kitchen manager for the shift or for the day, and all followed his lead as if he were the indisputable boss, because, well, he was.

Because they're replaceable. There are people at my plant that have skills that take literally YEARS to develop. Are you're telling me they should have less pull than the unskilled line workers because there's only a few of them? Why even bother going to school under such a system?

I guess you don't believe in political democracy, either.

Not sure what you mean here....is it that previous communist governments werent really communist? Can you explain the context of your comment for us?

He means that Marxist Communism has never before been attempted, merely Marxist Socialism, which is a distinct system. Neither the USSR, the PRC, nor any of their affiliates claimed to be operating under a system of Communism, merely to be adhering to Communist ideology.

Not that, even.

The analogy I use is like baking bread. When you bake a loaf of bread, you must first give the yeast time to rise, else you get flat bread. Its still bread, but its not really very good bread.

In the same way, the places that socialists succeeded in seizing the ship of state were societies which were not ripe for the transition to take place. Marx's analysis of the capitalist system was that it possessed inherent contradictions which would lead to its downfall. It was these antagonisms, which would result from the maturing of capitalism into a society where commodities are produced in surplus, society has produced a great deal of material wealth, along with a reasonable level of affluence across society, that would bring about the class consciousness among the proletariat to make them realize their capacity for forcing the shape of things into a system beneficial to them and not the rich minority.

It has been a huge problem for Marxists that agrarian or infant-industrial nations like Russia, Cuba, and China were the places that socialism succeeded, and not the industrial centers like Germany, France, Britain, and the United States, where Marx said it should.

There are a variety of explanations for this. The first is that in those places (I will generally use Russia as an example, since I know much more about it than either China or Cuba), class warfare was amplified doubly so, since the conflict was not only between the industrial workers and capitalists, but also the peasantry and aristocracy (and between capitalists and aristocracy, too! Who can forget that bourgeois and proletarian revolutionaries fought side by side to get rid of the Tsar?), and that this allowed the communists the necessary leverage to assume power. Another reason is that communist parties were far more popular in those areas because they were falling behind the industrial world, and socialism (specifically Trotskyism and Maoism) promised a way to rebuild and modernize failing states. But given the above analysis, can we be surprised that they failed? They did not let the yeast rise, so their bread came out of the oven flat.

However, I think that Trotsky and Lenin made a decent case in 1917, which was that if they had let the Provisional Government continue on and cooperated with them, then 1. the capitalist West would have walked all over them and turned them into a Latin-America-esque commodity dumping ground post-war, and 2. they might never command the capability to seize power again like they had at that moment. I personally think that they still had the ability to "save" their experiment, but that they failed to do so.

On the other side, in completely agrarian societies, I cannot help but think that Maoists, who believed the peasantry to be the "true" proletariat and who could build communism themselves, were nothing if not completely out of touch with reality. I cannot help but think they took Rousseau a bit too seriously, and failed to see how he applied and didn't apply to the industrial era. But that's just my personal musing.

So you see, its not a No Real Scotsman retreat for us to say that socialism has never been tried correctly, because, as Traitorfish said the other day, it is very clearly written that the fellow was from Yorkshire.

 

[Traitorfish]

Simply put, without looking at just the Soviet Union, why did Marxist insurrections lead to ruination, and, by your own definition, fail so consistently?

Well, given that only two Marxist regimes emerged independently- those others emerged under the heavy influence of either Russia or China, or, like Cuba, only moved towards Marxism under their influence- its hard to describe this as a "consistent" problem. It would be like observing the illiberal nature of Napoleon's puppet-republics and wondering why Republicanism "consistently" lead to authoritarianism.

...I will generally use Russia as an example, since I know much more about it than either China or Cuba...

Cuba, I am told, is a complicated one, because it was neither a true industrial capitalist society nor a feudal agrarian one, but sat somewhere in between. The plantation owners and landlords were of largely aristocratic stock, but their relationship to the means of production was in many ways capitalistic, while the workers were most often waged plantation workers who arguably formed a sort of rural proletariat. This seems to suggest that there was potential for a class conciousness to emerge and certain breed of socialism to develop, but that nobody quite knew how to make it so- Marx, after all, was very clear that the urban infrastructure of capitalism is highly important to the development of working class movements.
And, of course, Cuba is further complicated by its own political peculiarities, such as its proximity to the US, the strength of Soviet influence on the construction of the regime, and Castro's somewhat lukewarm commitment to socialist ideology. It can be alleged that their failure to establish socialism was simply because they never really tried in the first place, instead preferring a sort of quasi-socialist state collectivism, driven by a populist nationalism.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Well, given that only two Marxist regimes emerged independently- those others emerged under the heavy influence of either Russia or China, or, like Cuba, only moved towards Marxism under their influence- its hard to describe this as a "consistent" problem. It would be like observing the illiberal nature of Napoleon's puppet-republics and wondering why Republicanism "consistently" lead to authoritarianism.

Or you could look at the developement of American puppet republics and you'll find a much more diverse outcome (both for good and for bad.) You still have Yugoslavia, and could possibly count Vietnam and to a lesser extent Cambodia.
But the fact is that we can point to the mechanism by which republics in Europe in the Napoleonic Era failed: Because Napoleon himself strongarmed them into being either outright or De Facto Monarchies.
Why did all these governments fail in transitioning power to the workers?

 

[Traitorfish]

Or you could look at the developement of American puppet republics and you'll find a much more diverse outcome (both for good and for bad.)

That's in a large part because the US, unlike the USSR and PRC, advocated no political or social programs, simply the retention of a pro-US, pro-business and anti-communist regime. What the natives did at home didn't matter as long as the resources kept flowing, while the Soviets and Chinese kept on sticking their big nebs into everything.

You still have Yugoslavia, and could possibly count Vietnam and to a lesser extent Cambodia.

All of which emerged under the heavy influence of either the USSR or the PRC, which naturally distorts things. Even Yugoslavia was originally a Soviet satellite, with all the Stalinistic institutions and practices that implies; the split was in many ways a clash of personalities between Tito and Stalin, fuelled by the nationalism of the former and the imperialism of the latter.

But the fact is that we can point to the mechanism by which republics in Europe in the Napoleonic Era failed: Because Napoleon himself strongarmed them into being either outright or De Facto Monarchies.
Why did all these governments fail in transitioning power to the workers?

Oh, that's certainly a question worthy of asking, I don't deny it for a second. I merely take issue with the notion that two failed experiments and their spin-offs represent the "consistent" failure of socialism, which is a misrepresentation of events.

 

[ParkCungHee]

All of which emerged under the heavy influence of either the USSR or the PRC, which naturally distorts things.

Only to the extent that every republic operating in the Napoleonic Era was influenced by Napoleon. Or that all of the world was operating under the influence of the Soviet Union.
And questions of Bonapartism have plagued liberalism and were a very serious issue debated in liberal circles in the 19th century, and ways to prevent it were worked into most liberal constitutions, seperation of powers, term limits, loyalty to the constitution above the people it represents, etc.
However, in this case the answer seem to come in the form of "Maybe it won't screw up next time" and "If we had a better starting country, it would have worked." Both seem largely unconvincing.

 

[Cheetah]

Then they're screwed.

Conflict between men can and will happen at any time. Surely there must be a way to solve this, for a system designed with unavoidable deadlocks is a terrible system even before implementation.

How would you suggest to solve it? Would it go to court? Or would there be some form of arbiter or ombudsman to negotiate? Or perhaps a direct vote in society?

Yes it is, which is why I suggested legislation limiting the wage of the highest paid worker in a company to x times the pay of the lowest paid person in that company.

A limit on the difference in pay is not going to solve this. If one person produces more than the others, how would you go about making sure that he is compensated more than the others?

At any rate, a tyranny of the majority is preferable to a tyranny of the minority, which is what we have now.

No it isn't. A tyrant is at least one man with a mind that can be reasoned with. A mob has no mind and can not be reasoned with. That makes it far more dangerous.

Furthermore, I believe the current social democracies with their mixed economies give, by far, adequate protection to everyone and everyone is free to enter contracts with each other. How is that tyranny?

No, no they can't.

They most certainly can. Saying that they can is a provable lie.

By the way, I think you are missing the point of cooperative enterprises: they won't just be run cooperatively, but they will, by necessity, have to be begun cooperatively. Since, as you have noticed, why would someone begin a business knowing that when they expand it beyond themselves they will lose control?

Fair enough, this I can agree on. Within a communist society people would probably be inclined to organise as cooperatives.

But wait- Humans are very good at finding loopholes. Would single-man companies and/or cooperatives be allowed to enter contracts with each other freely? In that case, they would still be able to set up systems where people are paid differently. (Think consultants as an example.) How do you view such a thing?

Yes. But again, I don't see why we can't have special measures protecting corporate accounts from this sort of thing.

How would that work?

 

[Luckymoose]

Classless doesn't mean people get the same pay. That didn't even happen in the USSR.

Oh no no. USSR wasn't a true communist state. In a real communist society there is a classless society with equal pay, equal benefits. You can't claim to be a communist and then decide that some people aren't equal.