Incentives under communism?

[Snowygerry]

Borrowing the lightest touches of socialist principles doesn't make for a "requirement". Socialism and capitalism are at odds insofar as concentrating profits for the sake of profits runs against providing for everyone in a fair manner (to each person's needs).

Now, if capitalism could work without infinite growth, that'd be a different story. But it doesn't ever seem to. It very much seems to be a feature, not a bug.

And as I understand from this thread, systems that (however allegedly) automatically trend to unhealthy behaviours are systems that cannot ever work and therefore shouldn't even be attempted

All I want is a consistent rationale. So far the only consistent position is from the ones who say "socialism sucks and that's that". I disagree! Obviously haha. But at the very least it's not trying to hold socialism to a standard it's simultaneously excusing capitalism for.

We tax the profits and income generated by individuals and companies according to free-market capitalist principles , those are then redistributed according to the "needs" to provide education, health insurance, common defence and law enforcement etc.

In short we leave the individual free to be profitable, but when he does we will tax him and redistribute part of his wealth among the non-profitable.

That requires both capitalism AND socialism. Or competition and cooperation, if you will.

 

[Gorbles]

We tax the profits and income generated by individuals and companies according to free-market capitalist principles , those are then redistributed according to the "needs" to provide education, health insurance, common defence and law enforcement etc.

In short we leave the individual free to be profit, but when he does we will tax him and redistribute part of his wealth to the non-profitable.

That requires both capitalism AND socialism. Or competition and cooperation, if you will.

Tell me. What happens to a company that fails to maintain year-on-year growth? i.e. if they fail to increase the profits they generated the previous year (accounting for costs, inflation, etc). Is that considered ideal? Does that benefit the company in the longterm?

 

[Snowygerry]

That is a problem for the shareholders, not strictly the nation state, of course sometimes the nation state is also shareholder, and both functions are confused.

It is after all a hybrid system.

 

[Gorbles]

That is a problem for the shareholders, not strictly the nation state, of course sometimes the nation state is also shareholder, and both functions are confused.

It is after all a hybrid system.

I'm not asking who is responsible for it - I'm asking you to tell me what happens. Because in my experience, companies that fail to make year-on-year growth are called "failures", and either fold, are bought out, or otherwise cannibalised by the glorious "free market principles" that you mentioned. In that scenario, what actually gets redistributed? Whose "needs" do they serve, except to enrich other companies as they themselves pursue year-on-year growth?

 

[Zardnaar]

shrugs

You're the one who said it would work. Now you're saying it works in certain places, but they have downsides, and they're constantly fighting for the right voter share to do the "right" thing. If and when they even do that (broken promises, etc).

Seems to me like it's far from an ideal system. It may be the best we have right now, but that doesn't mean it's the best forever. Therefore we kinda need to think about what could be better, instead of dismissing alternatives out of hand as unworkable.

This applies as much to capitalism as it does our current democracies.

That's sort of the point democracies can change. Sometimes thats good sometimes it's bad.

You keep saying imagine idk if you're a Communist but there's some big gaps in theoretical communusm vs attempts to implement it.

A benevolent authoritarian is theoretically the best form of government but they get old and die.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm not asking who is responsible for it - I'm asking you to tell me what happens. Because in my experience, companies that fail to make year-on-year growth are called "failures", and either fold, are bought out, or otherwise cannibalised by the glorious "free market principles" that you mentioned. In that scenario, what actually gets redistributed? Whose "needs" do they serve, except to enrich other companies as they themselves pursue year-on-year growth?

Not sure if anyone here actually believe in an unregulated free market principles?

But yes companies and businesses will go under. That's not really a big probable comparable to the finance sector.

 

[Snowygerry]

I'm not asking who is responsible for it - I'm asking you to tell me what happens. Because in my experience, companies that fail to make year-on-year growth are called "failures", and either fold, are bought out, or otherwise cannibalised by the glorious "free market principles" that you mentioned. In that scenario, what actually gets redistributed? Whose "needs" do they serve, except to enrich other companies as they themselves pursue year-on-year growth?

That would be dependent on the shareholders, what you describe often happens to companies listed on the public stock exchange, they need year-on-year growth to keep their (virtual) market value up,

that has little to do with statecraft.

 

[Gorbles]

You keep saying imagine idk if you're a Communist but there's some big gaps in theoretical communusm vs attempts to implement it.

There are always big gaps in implementing anything from theory.

The difference is when people say we shouldn't even try, because of these gaps. But defend other systems that have gaps / problems appearing in implementation.

Like I keep saying, the point isn't perfection. The point is to simply be better.

Not sure if anyone here actually veievesvin an unregulated free market principles.

But yes companies and businesses will go under. That's not really a big probable comparable to the finance sector.

That would be dependent on the shareholders, what you describe often happens to companies listed on the public stock exchange, they need year-on-year growth to keep their (virtual) market value up,

that has little to do with statecraft.

Except it very much relates to the state "using" capitalism in terms of taxing the output. If businesses have to exceed growth or fail, then it incentivises the state to help (private) business maintain that growth, for its own interests. Whereas under a different economic model, that pressure wouldn't exist, and the state wouldn't have the incentive to help.

And don't get me wrong, I don't mean "help" in terms of legislation. I mean "help" by having jobs in the private sector, and interests that clash with their own as employees of the state. Again, we're back to corruption. Seems very much to be a feature of the system, in that you are rewarded for doing so.

That's why people talk about socialism the way they do. Nobody is talking about some utopian perfection (except in the most idealistic sense of "what could it look like when we get there"). We're talking about getting rid of these perverse incentives that arise out of the intentional system of attempting to generate infinite profit. Going public is a near-inevitability for so many companies. We can't argue that it isn't. There are companies that are able to avoid it, big ones even (Valve Corporation, for example). But these are the exceptions, and not the rule.

 

[Snowygerry]

(....) We can't argue that it isn't. There are companies that are able to avoid it, big ones even (Valve Corporation, for example). But these are the exceptions, and not the rule.

I wouldn't say so, by far most companies we have are small, privately owned companies, while they do have shareholders they don't need infinitely increasing profits, they just need to cover expenses and investments (and hopefully turn some profit), those are in fact the backbone of our economy (along with individuals taxed on salary), large multinational companies make up only a small fraction of the tax base.

 

[Zardnaar]

There are always big gaps in implementing anything from theory.

The difference is when people say we shouldn't even try, because of these gaps. But defend other systems that have gaps / problems appearing in implementation.

Like I keep saying, the point isn't perfection. The point is to simply be better.



Except it very much relates to the state "using" capitalism in terms of taxing the output. If businesses have to exceed growth or fail, then it incentivises the state to help (private) business maintain that growth, for its own interests. Whereas under a different economic model, that pressure wouldn't exist, and the state wouldn't have the incentive to help.

And don't get me wrong, I don't mean "help" in terms of legislation. I mean "help" by having jobs in the private sector, and interests that clash with their own as employees of the state. Again, we're back to corruption. Seems very much to be a feature of the system, in that you are rewarded for doing so.

That's why people talk about socialism the way they do. Nobody is talking about some utopian perfection (except in the most idealistic sense of "what could it look like when we get there"). We're talking about getting rid of these perverse incentives that arise out of the intentional system of attempting to generate infinite profit. Going public is a near-inevitability for so many companies. We can't argue that it isn't. There are companies that are able to avoid it, big ones even (Valve Corporation, for example). But these are the exceptions, and not the rule.

Thata why I specifically used farms as an example.

Farmers everywhere pretty much swing conservative. How do you get their land and have them keep running it is the main question.

They already have a low opinion of progressives one can guess what they th8nknof communism.

And that gets back to incentive.

 

[Gorbles]

I wouldn't say so, by far most companies we have are small, privately owned companies, while they do have shareholders they don't need infinitely increasing profits, they just need to cover expenses and investments (and hopefully turn some profit), those are in fact the backbone of our economy (along with individuals taxed on salary), large multinational companies make up only a small fraction of the tax base.

They don't have to be large or multinational. If they're publicly-traded, like you said, the incentive is there (market pressure). If they're privately-traded (not the same as owned, right?), then that's a different story. And that is certainly more ideal than a lot of countries around the world right now. Assuming they're doing a good job, of course

Thata why I specifically used farms as an example.

Farmers everywhere pretty much swing conservative. How do you get their land and have them keep running it is the main question.

Who cares? This isn't something we can magically flip a switch and sort out. It's a process. It would take time. Farming is complex because it massively varies depending on the primary output, consumption, and so on. But at a most basic level, farmers will find their leverage vanishes once we're not throwing out or otherwise spoiling tons of food (which is what happens currently under capitalism, because food that can't be sold doesn't have value).

Like I get you want a nice, neat answer. But I don't think you understand what happens when the financial incentive for profits, profits and more profits is removed from the equation.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Or in other words, capitalism does work....in Europe....when combined with a healthy dose of socialism....

And in wealthy countries which still exploit the 3rd world. More money comes from Africa in profits than goes to it in aid and investment.

 

[Zardnaar]

They don't have to be large or multinational. If they're publicly-traded, like you said, the incentive is there (market pressure). If they're privately-traded (not the same as owned, right?), then that's a different story. And that is certainly more ideal than a lot of countries around the world right now. Assuming they're doing a good job, of course


Who cares? This isn't something we can magically flip a switch and sort out. It's a process. It would take time. Farming is complex because it massively varies depending on the primary output, consumption, and so on. But at a most basic level, farmers will find their leverage vanishes once we're not throwing out or otherwise spoiling tons of food (which is what happens currently under capitalism, because food that can't be sold doesn't have value).

Like I get you want a nice, neat answer. But I don't think you understand what happens when the financial incentive for profits, profits and more profits is removed from the equation.

Well we had several posters out state or imply the kukaks deserved it and for some reason they should feed them.

And magic jellybeans seems to be the answer. Idk if you personally are a communist. I know you're left wing for example.

My D^D group has a communistbin it hevusnt an apologist for Mao and Co (neither are you btw).

Two of us have worked on farms idk how to run the farm. Not sure aboutFarmboy.

Zimbabwe is another example. Every time farms have been seized en masse starvation follows. And it's a basic tennet of Communism.

Magic jellybeans and wishful thinking won't fix that. It's like anti semitism in Nazism (vs Fascism in general). It's can't work, hasn't worked, won't work and never will work at least with Marxs seize the means of production philosophy.

Capitalism problem is distribution. Communisms is production.

 

[Akka]

This thread has been going back and forth to Hell and back, but the underlying current is still here : how do you incentive people to do the work under a communist regime that tries to fit the communist ideal ?

Free market rely on people being somewhat greedy, so they are motivated by wanting to gain something (mainly money, but in society money can be a provider or a stand-in for many things : comfort, prestige, validation, counter, power, etc.). This is freeform and universal enough to inject the volition required in the economic engine so that it runs. It requires a lot of regulation to not become a dystopia (because basically the system relies on people wanting what can give them power, and if you don't check it, power begets power), but it does give incentive to people to participate.

The question for communism is : how does it give incentive to people to participate ?
I don't remember seeing a convincing argument about it yet - in fact, I don't really remember seeing an answer at all. A large amount of criticism about communism is precisely that it can't motivate people, so it has to rely on forcing them through physical violence. Basically, it has the stick but lacks the carrot.

 

[Senethro]

I don't remember Free Market supporters being able to adequately explain where their non-coercive wholly voluntary fruit coffee and clothes come from. Or to honestly admit that its a bug, not a feature, because that would be to acknowledge it.

 

[amadeus]

In that scenario, what actually gets redistributed?

Do you mean, the process of bankruptcy? I’m not saying I want businesses to fail, but the failure of businesses that are out-competed is in the aggregate something of a net positive, speaking broadly—your factors of production, capital, land, labor, they are not instantly devalued to zero, so there is the opportunity for all of that to be put to productive use.

I’m not sure such a thing as I describe would be any more possible to prevent in what, and I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, you might describe as socialism through collectively-owned enterprises. I see the problems as being the same, the necessary lack of information or whatever psychological biases people hold that keep them in unproductive works.

 

[Snowygerry]

I don't remember Free Market supporters being able to adequately explain where their non-coercive wholly voluntary fruit coffee and clothes come from. Or to honestly admit that its a bug, not a feature, because that would be to acknowledge it.

It's a feature, not a bug.

We draw raw materials from the US, Russia, Arabia, the Far East.(also Africa and Southern America obviously) In fact capitalism started here by importing wool from England and processing it into cloth and selling in France.

Buy, add value, sell for profit - that is the essence of capitalism.

Tax profit and redistribute - that is the essence of socialism, as I see it - not Marx.

 

[Senethro]

It's a feature, not a bug.

We draw raw materials from the US, Russia, Arabia, the Far East.(also Africa and Southern America obviously) In fact capitalism started here by importing wool from England and processing it into cloth and selling in France.

Buy, add value, sell for profit - that is the essence of capitalism.

Tax profit and redistribute - that is the essence of socialism, as I see it - not Marx.

I mean, I agree. I think it is a feature. I dislike it.

But refusing to acknowledge that it exists and it happens is very lacking in intellectual integrity. But I think I've made those guys ignore lists long ago, so here it lies.

 

[uppi]

There's a lot of moaning about socialism too, but for some reason that sticks, while moaning about democracy is seen as tantamount to wanting to abolish it, and other weird assertions.

No. But it actually working as designed in places where it isn't would be nice

Turns out, where it isn't, monied interests are a factor. Which takes us back to capitalism.

The people who moan about communism don't want it (at least not as long as there are these big unanswered questions). What do the people who moan about democracy want? As I said, I am not sure, because few want to commit that they are actually against democracy.

I don't remember Free Market supporters being able to adequately explain where their non-coercive wholly voluntary fruit coffee and clothes come from. Or to honestly admit that its a bug, not a feature, because that would be to acknowledge it.

Is it a feature of the Free Market though? Where does the non-coercive, wholly voluntary fruit and coffee come from in a hypothetical communist state? Or in other words: a hypothetical communist state which would be able to extract value from other nations would be much better of than a hypothetical communist state that did not.

One might even argue, that one of the reasons the socialist states in Eastern Europe failed was that they were not effective enough at extracting value from other countries. The people wanted bananas.

The argument I do see, is that a hypothetical communist state might be better at distributing the extracted value among its citizens (instead of concentrating most of the value in few hands)

 

[Remorseless1]

I don't remember Free Market supporters being able to adequately explain where their non-coercive wholly voluntary fruit coffee and clothes come from. Or to honestly admit that its a bug, not a feature, because that would be to acknowledge it.

My coffee is grown by farmers in Columbia. They make money off my love of coffee. I get great coffee every morning.