Communism III

It's huge.I've read the introduction so far but i'm gonna read it.
to my mind Guild Socialism would lead to corporations grouping each guild of each sector and then corporations would merge n it'd be a one-company system,a state-owned,people-owned one because people don't like competition within their job.
Greadius would say that it'd lead to no competiton,that is to say tyranny.If people vote about economics then it's no tyranny ;)
 
Just skim it, like me, and then we'll make believe we read it all.

Damien: "Greadius would say that it'd lead to no competiton,that is to say tyranny.If people vote about economics then it's no tyranny."

Remember Greadius has little faith (optimism and deference, I should say) in democracy (voting). I think he loves Freedom.
 
Greadius: "I'd rather be bombarded with advertisement because I have a choice than stand in line and hope I get to the front before whatever it is I'm in line for runs out. Unless of course you have a better plan...?"

The freedom to buy any car he sees on TV, for example, because anyone in America can choose whatever they like.

I'll bet there are Americans right now watching toilet paper ads, who can't afford it and BLAME THEMSELVES because of such choice words. I'm defending Americans against Americans, here! What madness!
 
Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Ok. I've got you capitalists cornered. So communism can't work because people are lazy and selfish by NATURE (not by environment)?
Not really lazy or selfish. (Rational) People will choose more over less goods, and less cost over more; that is basic economics. So, individuals within a group to whom a collective benefit will be supplied regardless of their production have no incentive (past altruistic incentive, which only works effectively in smaller groups) to contribute to the creation of that collective good. If its by nature or enviroment I'm not interested in... insignificant. However, systems that have operated under the assumption that altruism will provide a necessary incentive on a large scale have failed in the past and will always fail.
Originally posted by Damien
It'd be great,at least better than the system we live in.
Why?
Originally posted by Damien
Lodging cooperatives in Switzerland are far from failing.
If they're voluntary of course they won't fail.
Originally posted by Damien
Greadius would say that it'd lead to no competiton,that is to say tyranny.If people vote about economics then it's no tyranny ;)
Its not tyranny if they decide what to do with collective wealth. However, if they're voting what to do with other people's money its more thievery than tyranny.
Corperations are democracies, in a way, since shareholders determine the actions of a company. Workers usually have access to the cheapest stocks. However, there aren't institutional checks and balances in the corperate system to prevent from power accumulation. It what those 50.5% shareholders can control the company. If that shareholder does a good job, the other 49.5% benefit just as much. You have to 'earn' (by paying) the right to vote.

The reason the undemocratic nature of it does NOT bother me is because one isn't forced to join, or stay with a company, nor does one have to buy their products. The system is entirely voluntary. Only the government has such coercive power. As a result, corperations can focus on maximizing efficiency so that limit resources can meet more of unlimited wants. Its a consumer oriented society, and since I'm a consumer, I like it :goodjob:

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Remember Greadius has little faith (optimism and deference, I should say) in democracy (voting). I think he loves Freedom.
:love: freedom.
I have plenty of faith in democracy, but I'm not blind to its faults. Just like capitalism, I know its not perfect, and I don't expect it to be. Yet, out of fear of the alternatives, I'll defend their virtues and downplay their vices.
 
Ok,i've read the whole stuff.To me guild socialism is too complicated and wouldn't work.The system separates worker,consumer,citizen etc by different councils.But a worker is a consumer and a citizen as well.A state-owned system in which people workin in the sector(in which there's only the state-owned company) would vote what to do for the sector(wages-prices etc) would be the best i think.
 
Originally posted by Damien
Ok,i've read the whole stuff.To me guild socialism is too complicated and wouldn't work.The system separates worker,consumer,citizen etc by different councils.But a worker is a consumer and a citizen as well.A state-owned system in which people workin in the sector(in which there's only the state-owned company) would vote what to do for the sector(wages-prices etc) would be the best i think.

What if they voted to give themselves much higher wages than anyone else? You must see the problems inherent in giving the control over a person's salary to that person. You can say they will keep it low out of altruism, and I will say you are living in a dream world. What if they voted to have vacations 300 days a year? If there is no market mechanism to keep their policies grounded in reality, then how can you accurately predict that this economic system would function at all? By the equal sharing of costs and benefits, you penalize the competent and reward the incompetent. I, and those like me, believe that you are entitled to own that which you worked to obtain. You would take it away to give it to those who could not produce it for whatever reason.
 
Well, there is such a thing as ''market socialism'', and a type of guild socialism that is based on a market economy.


Damnit, there are too many socialisms.

Put two leftists in a room alone, and what do you get? Three splinter groups.
 
'Now, I said that forced re-distribution of wealth is theft'

LOL

Lets think of one real problem without taxes - oh yeah, no social security, people starve.
Oh yeah No police, no defense, no street lighting (all examples of public goods). - No way t discourage goods with a higher social cost than a private cost etc.

I think we may have got down to the basic problem that someone people here do not know what they are talking about (I notice my point about state ownership of buildings has been ignored)

Could you stop pointing to the Aztecs as a good example collectivist society - the Aztecs were in the position that medieval Europe was and the third world is todayh. Most of the population is VERY poor and there are VERY few rich people.
That society is a dictatorship.

'Not really lazy or selfish. (Rational) People will choose more over less goods, and less cost over more; that is basic economics. So, individuals within a group to whom a collective benefit will be supplied regardless of their production have no incentive (past altruistic incentive, which only works effectively in smaller groups) to contribute to the creation of that collective good. If its by nature or enviroment I'm not interested in... insignificant. However, systems that have operated under the assumption that altruism will provide a necessary incentive on a large scale have failed in the past and will always fail.'

Very eloquently put and I agree 100%


'The freedom to buy any car he sees on TV, for example, because anyone in America can choose whatever they like.'

LOL - what you dont think of is that someone has to make this car - people have to be employed to work and make the car, while they do that they are not making something else - so you have to choose what they make and how valuable it is in terms of somethign else.
What you are exchanging in your money is labour - you are saying I have done this much labour so give me that which I think is worth this much labour.
Not everyone can have everything they want - that is the economic problem (scarcity) - like in civilisation you have shields right? Well you can't produce an airport unless you do away with a market for a time (get it) - ahh its a bad example but I hope you understand
 
Originally posted by roadwarrior


What if they voted to give themselves much higher wages than anyone else? You must see the problems inherent in giving the control over a person's salary to that person. You can say they will keep it low out of altruism, and I will say you are living in a dream world. What if they voted to have vacations 300 days a year? If there is no market mechanism to keep their policies grounded in reality, then how can you accurately predict that this economic system would function at all? By the equal sharing of costs and benefits, you penalize the competent and reward the incompetent. I, and those like me, believe that you are entitled to own that which you worked to obtain. You would take it away to give it to those who could not produce it for whatever reason.

Roadwarrior,i really wonder y 51% of the people didn't already reduce 49%of the people to slavery.C facism,communism etc,people are too dumb to vote.What happened in Germany,USSR,etc is because political parties stole the citizens' right to speak and it wouldn't have happened in a real democratic system.Y can't people enslave each other?Because it is forbidden by the constitution n the federal court would abort the transaction.What would prevent people from voting for 300 days of vacation/year?The federal Chamber of Trade cancelling any unfair(violating others'freedom) decisions like racial segregation or decisions which don't fill people's needs.And about higher wages,wages don't have to be equal(not talkin about inside the sector).It can be different depending on the sector(ur job).Harder jobs(dockers;scientists) would be better rewarded but anyways a part of the wages would be taken at the end of the month at the source(like in the UK) for the state to avoid great differences in wealth(min-max limits would have to be fixed by refendum).
 
Greadius won't say that people are selfish or lazy, but goes on to say "(Rational) People will choose...", and "...have no incentive...to contribute...", which seems awfully close, just using a different language. Why not just use plain english? I think it's clear enough where everybody's standing on this question of human nature, so let's go on.

We must decide if people WILL work when there's neither a pressing need (survival), or personal material gain for working, because we want to know if work will get done in an absolutely voluntary communist state which guarantees all possible wealth regardless of work done. That state is what the capitalists are arguing against. I believe it unrealistic, but this seems the kind of state I'm expected to defend.

Maybe my argument that it's in human nature to work, even without incentive, is running up against a (capitalist) cultural assumption. People, to be objective, must define their conditioning (upbringing,etc.), compare this to others in general, and then question anything they've absorbed as a special feature of their condition. For example: a female could begin to question her assumptions by asking, "What assumptions do females make?" likewise a 10-year-old or a Canadian. What assumptions do people raised in a thoroughly capitalist environment make about human nature?

Whether people are capitalists by nature or by experiance is very important, here.

I think that people WILL work, unless taught certain things about work: Work is unpleasant. Work is for money. Work is managed by a superior. Or worse yet: Capitalist analysis of work. With this conditioning in place, a person is incapable of functioning in anything but the most coercive of communist systems (such systems reinforce the bad taste of work), incapable of working unless with "incentive" or for mere survival. Of course if you are such a person looking at others in the same condition, you will likely conclude that people are lazy and selfish. I happen to see a lot of people working just as they need to eat, sleep, and screw. I can usually find some "motive" for their working, but it seems as likely they are naturally inclined to work, and only want an excuse for it. Like some people are natural flamers, and look for an excuse - they may not even know what they're doing. So people work all over the world, in various pursuits, with various governments or economists claiming to run the show.

Special thanks to my son, who is now 11 months. He babbles. He doesn't know how to speak, doesn't know he will one day form words, has no goal or incentive. Yet he babbles by nature so he will speak.

We work to thrive. That's how it's always been and how it will be.
 
Sorry, folks. I probably broke a forum rule with the "eat, sleep, and s***w" mantra. Apologies if I offended anyone.
 
'We must decide if people WILL work when there's neither a pressing need (survival), or personal material gain for working'

PEople would do some jobs but not the unpleasent ones - if you could be a bin man or have unlimited leisure time what would you do.
Whats more we can prove humans act like this because of what happens when you increase unemployment beneift too much or make it not dependent on looking for work - people stop working
because they can live comfotarbly on what they have - this is true

We work to thrive. - if this were true societys would be different - in early socieites (and most mammal societies) some people are on top and the others do stuff for them. People on their own work to support themselves directly (grow their own food etc) and people work now to get what they need.
 
Originally posted by Graeme the mad
'Now, I said that forced re-distribution of wealth is theft'

LOL

Lets think of one real problem without taxes - oh yeah, no social security, people starve.
Oh yeah No police, no defense, no street lighting (all examples of public goods). - No way t discourage goods with a higher social cost than a private cost etc.


Your attacking anarchism, or even some forms of libertarianism, not communism. I could give you a very long reply and point you to dozens of different sources that would help answer your question, but I don't feel like jacking this thread anymore.
 
People work to fill their needs and if money were re-distributed everybody could do great things and thrive.(group their capital to build great center in which people would play civ when they don't work for example ;) ).
People wouldn't get great wages(wouldn't get hundreds of thousands dollars/month) but be able to have have money at the end of the month or for leisure time.About dustmen,they'd get a high wage.
We still live with a credit system n i find that system is simply slavery.U shouldn't be able to spend money that u don't have because if it's the case u work only to reimburse and it doesn't end.That system always existed(slavery,then peonage,then the credit system) and took various forms.It's deprivation of freedom.
Just saw a doc on tv about an ex-soviet town in Siberia founded as a goulag and then it became a mining town because young people used to come to be miners because the wage was 10X the average wage in the USSR.That town now is dying n people can't get out of it because they get no money.The mining company gives tickets to get bread and milk(workers do 3 hours queue to get it) n then at the end of the month,the wage is swallowed by the value of tickets so they never get money.They live to reimburse,it's slavery.
Anyway,y do u pay a rent for ur flat or to take the train?Ur flat by itself needs no energy(not talking about electricity n water) n the train still needs the same energy whether it's full or empty.The same could be said for motorways in France.U have to pay when u arrive at every toll(about each 30 miles) to be allowed to drive further.It's like in the middle-age.
Chores n slavery are often denounced because it's off now but what about all the systems i talked about above?
 
Because the process of achieving an artificial equality of wealth is impossible within a democracy.

Who said any thing about artificial?

And this is here we differ, you think it is impossible, I think it is possible.

Damnit, there are too many socialisms.

Put two leftists in a room alone, and what do you get? Three splinter groups

It is true that there are a great number of radically different left-wing views, but some people (you know who I mean) simply refuse to beleive this and brand all left-wingers Lenin worshipers. I myself would have been rounded up and shot by the Bolsheviks in the 1917 reveloution, Lenin would have hated me becuase I disagree with HIS methods and his interpretation of Marxism.
 
A little story:

Once upon a time a man worked at a bakery. He was a good baker, but he was poor. One day he came up with an idea to put cinnamon in the rolls and top them with a sweet icing. He went to the owner with the idea, but he wasn't interested. The man then asked to use the ovens and other facilities. The owner agreed that for one month, he could use the ovens on Saturday if he worked for one extra hour per day and reimbursed the owner for any supplies used.

Next Saturday came and while the man was tired, he was eager to make his new cinnamon rolls. He worked all day and then on Sunday he took them to the village market to sell. People loved them. The man was charging $2.00 for these rolls and they only cost $.50 each. He sold out right away. This continued on each of the Saturdays. By the end of the month, the man had amassed $6,000 selling his rolls.

At this point the owner of the bakery came to discuss the use of the ovens. He was going to open the bakery on Saturdays and our hero couldn't use the ovens anymore. The man was unhappy. What could he do? The owner told him about a portable oven he could buy for $5,000. The man was happy again. He bought the portable oven and set up in the local part after obtaining the required permits. Now he was able to support himself just by selling these new cinnamon rolls, but he had to work every day.

Over time, he had built up quite a bit of money. People really liked those cinnamon rolls. He decided that he would use the money to buy a second portable oven. But how would he opperate both? He decided that he would hire his friend who used to work at the bakery. His friend hadn't had the idea and hadn't worked all those extra hours to earn the money for the cart, so the man only let him keep part of the profits he made. After all, it was our hero's cart, and idea. And he was buying all the supplies and aranging for the permits.

This continued for many years. Every so often when the man could afford it, he bought another cart and hired another person. Some of the people he hired were unemployed and were having trouble finding work. The money they made selling cinnamon rolls allowed them to support themselves. Eventually the man had $250,000 stuck under his matress.

One day one of his best employees came to him with an idea. He wanted to make muffins. All different flavors. The trouble was, the man had no money, and our hero had no extra ovens to lend him. So the man suggested that he could borrow the money. This time though what was needed was an actual store. It was going to cost $200,000. This was most of what the man had saved from years of long hours selling rolls and managing his business. What if this employee's idea didn't work? What if he lost all the money? Our hero was counting on that money. He was going to retire on it in a few years. If he lost it, he wouldn't be able to retire as soon. The money was safe (so the man thought) under his matress. It was risky to lend it to this employee, even though our hero thought the idea would work.

Our hero decided that he needed compensation for this risk. He would lend the money and the man would pay him back plus a little bit extra over time.

The idea worked and the employee made lots of money and employeed a dozen people. He repaid his debt and interest on time. botgh of them were happy. The employee was successful, and our hero benefitted from the risk he had taken. He had taken a quantity of the fruits of his labor, lent it to another, and had been rewarded for doing so. It wasn't a sure thing, and could have gone wrong, but our hero had taken a chance.

What if our hero hadn't lent the man the money? He wouldn't have if he hadn't been able to charge interest. He was quite content with the money under his matress and had no need to risk it with no hope of gain.


A little defense of lending, employing, borrowing and finance in general. I will continue it at need, but I realize it is getting a little long. Let me know if you think anything in this story is evil or wrong. :)
 
This is a beautiful story but what if the boss would've stolen the idea or if he needed to give too much money to get the ovens?That happens not so well in the reality.The guy who invented the windshield wipers got his idea stolen by General Motors.(that sold it to Renault,Chrystler etc etc).To protect a patent internationally u have to give 150,000€.Companies like Shell or Total put pression on the french govt so that it lets down new energies.
When creativity is wiped out by those already benefiting from the system,it's not normal.What happened with capitalism n the bourgeois revolutions?Only parts of freedom were given and the bourgeoisie took the place of aristocracy.
The market is like the Western USA.At the beginning it was empty n then came big farmers preventing the last who came from developing.The problem with capitalism is that it's not like in the theory;the system is secured and is not thriving as it should.Normally CD's would have been sold from 1976,not 1983 and Win XP should 've been out way earlier.
If people could vote about inventions,ur guy would have been given money to produce one roll for each person in his commune.If people like it,the commune gives money;if not goodbye.
THAT way we progress.
What was done with bourgeois revolutions;the right to vote was given to rich people then to everybody but u have to choose ur rulers and people "representing you".Democracy is not to choose between Louis the 14th n Charles the 5th.The people rule!With the majoritarian system(applied in France and the UK)a minority can make laws:When a representative is chosen in your constituency,he only needs to have 51%.When a law is voted in the parliament,only 51% of the representatives are needed.51% x 51%=26%(read it on the paper posted by Fez-Monk).
 
Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Greadius won't say that people are selfish or lazy, but goes on to say "(Rational) People will choose...", and "...have no incentive...to contribute...", which seems awfully close, just using a different language. Why not just use plain english?
I don't consider the pursuit of self-interest selfish or lazy. I think those are both examples of minor personality disorders which take human nature to the extreme. Unless you can create an objective measure of selfish and lazy, however, I don't know if we mean the same thing.

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Maybe my argument that it's in human nature to work, even without incentive, is running up against a (capitalist) cultural assumption. People, to be objective, must define their conditioning (upbringing,etc.), compare this to others in general, and then question anything they've absorbed as a special feature of their condition. For example: a female could begin to question her assumptions by asking, "What assumptions do females make?" likewise a 10-year-old or a Canadian. What assumptions do people raised in a thoroughly capitalist environment make about human nature?
Seeing as there are capitalists in Russia and communists in America, not much.
I don't speak for what capitalists think about human nature. My opinions are my own, stolen and borrowed from some people much wiser than I am.
I think its completely irrelevant because I don't believe in extensive government-induced social engineering with the explicit purpose of altering the way people think to fit the current governments outlook is a good thing. You cannot create an a society that depends on community-minded work ethic out of scratch. The PROCESS to that point is what I fear the greatest, because only a small number of detractors can throw the system off balance. Even if the painful and lengthy process succeeds, I have no reason to believe the results will be any better. I KNOW they won't be for me, so naturally I'm against it. Self-interest here.

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
I think that people WILL work, unless taught certain things about work: Work is unpleasant. Work is for money. Work is managed by a superior. Or worse yet: Capitalist analysis of work.
Thats nice... your assumption is based on what...?

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Of course if you are such a person looking at others in the same condition, you will likely conclude that people are lazy and selfish.
I don't have a problem with people being lazy or selfish unless they make it my problem.

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
So people work all over the world, in various pursuits, with various governments or economists claiming to run the show.
I'd 'work' for free if the job was right, and assuming my basic needs were met.
The problem is determining the right job. Not everyone can do what they want to do, and there are some jobs which almost nobody wants to do but are needed. You can't reconcile that fact on altruism; there needs to be a greater individual incentive.

Originally posted by ComradeDavo
Who said any thing about artificial?
And this is here we differ, you think it is impossible, I think it is possible.
There is no naturally developed enviroment that I know of where all are completely equal, so it would be artificial.
And I don't think it is possible because it hasn't been done and I have yet to see a feasable plan to make it happen without the costs of the process exceeding the gains from the result. On what basis do you believe it is possible?

Originally posted by knowltok2
A little defense of lending, employing, borrowing and finance in general. I will continue it at need, but I realize it is getting a little long. Let me know if you think anything in this story is evil or wrong.
Its anecdotal. Now you've ushered in story time where the resident Communists can share theirs and make me loose my appitite :p
 
Originally posted by Damien
This is a beautiful story but what if the boss would've stolen the idea or if he needed to give too much money to get the ovens?That happens not so well in the reality.The guy who invented the windshield wipers got his idea stolen by General Motors.(that sold it to Renault,Chrystler etc etc).To protect a patent internationally u have to give 150,000€.Companies like Shell or Total put pression on the french govt so that it lets down new energies.
When creativity is wiped out by those already benefiting from the system,it's not normal.What happened with capitalism n the bourgeois revolutions?Only parts of freedom were given and the bourgeoisie took the place of aristocracy.
The market is like the Western USA.At the beginning it was empty n then came big farmers preventing the last who came from developing.The problem with capitalism is that it's not like in the theory;the system is secured and is not thriving as it should.Normally CD's would have been sold from 1976,not 1983 and Win XP should 've been out way earlier.
If people could vote about inventions,ur guy would have been given money to produce one roll for each person in his commune.If people like it,the commune gives money;if not goodbye.
THAT way we progress.
What was done with bourgeois revolutions;the right to vote was given to rich people then to everybody but u have to choose ur rulers and people "representing you".Democracy is not to choose between Louis the 14th n Charles the 5th.The people rule!With the majoritarian system(applied in France and the UK)a minority can make laws:When a representative is chosen in your constituency,he only needs to have 51%.When a law is voted in the parliament,only 51% of the representatives are needed.51% x 51%=26%(read it on the paper posted by Fez-Monk).

As for the owner stealing the idea, I postulate that he follows the law of the land that says he is not allowed to do so. In truth the man will need a loan of capital to get started, I started without that so people wouldn't say, "Yeah, but he got that loan from a greedy capitalist that never worked a day in his life." Perhaps true, but that gets into another topic, what should become of your property when you die.

Don't know about the rest of your post. bourgeois revolutions, Loius the 14th, etc. Don't follow. As for the part about being given funds for one roll per person, that is a lot of money in a nation of 300 million people. Heck of a distribution system is needed too. Then it doesn't work and what are we left with?

Greadius: Sorry, I wanted to put it in simpler terms. Story time is fun!:) To make it short and to the point:

1. Increased risk requires increased expected return.
2. A dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow.

Given these two facts, charging interest is not evil or wrong. If I lend you a dollar, I need some compensation for my delayed utility on that dollar, otherwise I will not lend it. If I don't lend it, you can't do what you want to with it, which could very well be starting a business that provides jobs.


;) Better?
 
Back
Top Bottom