Successful Communism

[Joecoolyo]

Wait, you're a fascist? Well, I know there are different meanings, you're not talking Hitler fascism are you?

Nah, he's not a Hitler fascist. He's a weak spineless fascist. I mean, his fascism didn't even try to exterminate all the Jews.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I'd really be interested in watching you dichotomize Nazism's economics with Il Duce's, who, after all, was a card holding socialist until the day he died.

Well, to be fair, he was kicked out of the Socialist Party.

And I'd say that he was a corporatist/state capitalist.

Basically 1960s Soviet economics minus communes plus extreme military-industrial complex. Or something. I'm not that knowledgeable.

But yeah, I agree, Hitler and Mussolini had very few differences in economics (or social issues/at all, for that matter)

 

[Karalysia]

Don't talk to Merikinball about state capitalism. He doesn't recognize its existence.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Your logic is only half right. While it is obviously true that corporations do a lot of planning, what I am arguing is that said planning is only made possible because of a huge amount of information from the market. When one says that a planned economy does not work, one is not arguing for the abolition of all planning. Even in markets with perfect competition, there is still a good degree of planning.

I think we have drifted into two different areas. The type of planning I'm talking about is primarily industrial planning between two corporations, not really planning on the consumer end of things. But I maintain that they heavily influence the markets they sell into, beginning long before their new product actually hits shelves, either literally or figuratively. After all, the more predictable costs and profits are, the less waste there is, and so long as they can at least reasonably guarantee a reasonable return on a given investment, its worth the risk.

Where the heavy planning goes on is for corporations like US Steel, for example, or Lockheed; the latter of which enjoys a virtually invincible and singular customer.

It should also be noted that corporations are trying to greatly diminish their reliance on long term planning and are embracing market unpredictability. Even for the most specific product, a factory is now expected to be able to switch production quickly and without much prior notice. Corporations that cannot quickly adjust to a changing market are being swept out.

The growth of the service sector has facilitated this I'm sure. The point is not merely that planning is a luxury, but rather that it is a necessity. To advocate a return to markets in these areas is essentially luddism.

The Soviet economy had many problems, and as I said that it could not properly price things was one of the major ones. They did use sophisticated mathematical models to try and plan production, but they failed.

Well they didn't fail, they just weren't up to par. Presumably, using your logic, they could collect enough information to be reasonably responsive to consumer demands, even if they never equally the response rate of a market. But the problem is decisions being made from afar; where planning should take place (were we attempting to plan these things) is in the areas most directly involved with consumers, not in the capital city thousands of miles away; maybe even not across town.

American corporations can also fail, of course, and as I said those who rely too much on prior planning and are unable to adjust to changing demands are being driven out of the market and replaced by more efficient firms; and that is yet another strength of the American system.

The great corporations that engage in planning do so because all other corporations in their would-be market do the same. They cooperate in this, because their goal is sustainability through predictability, not profit maximization and destruction of competition. This is why corporate buy-outs aren't really a big deal, its a change of the name on the front door, but that's about it.

Some CEOs are useless, some are brilliant. Just like managers in general, really. There are examples of CEOs who really gave a priceless contribution to their business.

I couldn't think of any. They may rubber-stamp things their managers decide, but they are hardly fountains of original ideas that shape the company; unlike their entrepreneurial counterparts, of course.

Cheezy, I'm an automotive mechanical engineer. I hate to tell you this, but you are wrong. Cars are made out of generally cheap crap. One thing is for sure, all of the materials are quite common and dirt cheap. It costs about $3000-$4000 to make your average mid-size car.

Fair enough, I concede the point then. But that equipment is still being manufactured specifically for them, which is why this cooperation takes place. Both the buyers and the sellers need to know that the other end will provide/consume all that they wish to consume/provide, and the best way to do that in this case is to decide all that beforehand.

You're right about tooling and manufacturing. It is expensive, but there are methods of cutting down costs and they almost never have to retool them until they're finished with a particular platform (IE: recalls requiring it). I won't deny that, and I won't deny that it's complex and takes an immense amount of planning. But I am denying that cars are expensive and use super high tech materials. Because that's just pretty much farcical.

Well when I said expensive, I meant in terms of the things they could be selling in the time it takes to fix the problems they have after production begins. Simply being unique is enough, and the time consumption that re-ordering and re-designing things entails. How many other things do you use the same metal in a Ford Mustang's frame for?

 

[ilduce349]

I'd really be interested in watching you dichotomize Nazism's economics with Il Duce's, who, after all, was a card holding socialist until the day he died.



Some might call this nationalization. Ya know, like national socialism...

1) As i said before, Il Duce was a socialist, who temporarily acted as a capitalist to gain power, the system he starting with is the system I believe in

2) National Capitalism is wats its called

 

[ilduce349]

Nah, he's not a Hitler fascist. He's a weak spineless fascist. I mean, his fascism didn't even try to exterminate all the Jews.

u got it right

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I'd really be interested in watching you dichotomize Nazism's economics with Il Duce's, who, after all, was a card holding socialist until the day he died.

Then why would he observe this in October 1914?

"The nation has not disappeared. We used to believe that the concept was totally without substance. Instead we see the nation arise as a palpitating reality before us! ... Class cannot destroy the nation. Class reveals itself as a collection of interests—but the nation is a history of sentiments, traditions, language, culture, and race. Class can become an integral part of the nation, but the one cannot eclipse the other.

The class struggle is a vain formula, without effect and consequence wherever one finds a people that has not integrated itself into its proper linguistic and racial confines—where the national problem has not been definitely resolved. In such circumstances the class movement finds itself impaired by an inauspicious historic climate."

 

[Traitorfish]

Hitler was not a fascist he was a Nazi. Nazism is national socialism, as fascism is national capitalism, their is a difference

You take the term "National Socialist" altogether too literally for an intelligent understanding of Hitlerite fascism, which was and always was, in essence, a racialist variant of Fascismo . Their economic and political programs were very similar, and their cultural ones differed only in that Mussolini's regime maintained relatively passive control of the fine arts, at least until German influence prevailed in the late 1930s. There's certainly an argument to be made that the Strasserites represent a distinct, more "socialist" brand of fascism, although they would have argued that theirs was the true, uncompromised form, but seeing as now Strasserite party has ever held government, that is an area open to speculation.

 

[Onionsoilder]

Alright, everyone says that Communism and Socialism aren't necessarily always like the regimes of Stalin and Mao. Camikazee's signiture says it, Karalysia pretends to be a Communist Robot. So, when has communism worked in a manner that was unlike Stalin and Mao? When has it worked successfully according to "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Dwarf Fortress (Before the economy kicks in, obviously). It really does display the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." factor. Only problem is, dwarven culture can not be applied to human situations, because humans are a bunch of immoral greedy lazy wrathful lusting envious arrogant gluttonous pigs. Also, dwarves only exist in fantasy.

In other words, a communist society will always mean the many will be exploited by the few, just as the many will always be exploited by the few in a capitalist society. Arguing capitalism v.s. communism is a moot point, then. The only time this exploitation is diminished is when the rulers are benevolent, be it a democracy, monarchy, technocracy, or despotism. Of course, this is an extremely rare situation, as power corrupts. This is why I usually vote the incumbents out of office, unless I know they're doing a good job.

 

[ilduce349]

You take the term "National Socialist" altogether too literally for an intelligent understanding of Hitlerite fascism, which was and always was, in essence, a racialist variant of Fascismo . Their economic and political programs were very similar, and their cultural ones differed only in that Mussolini's regime maintained relatively passive control of the fine arts, at least until German influence prevailed in the late 1930s. There's certainly an argument to be made that the Strasserites represent a distinct, more "socialist" brand of fascism, although they would have argued that theirs was the true, uncompromised form, but seeing as now Strasserite party has ever held government, that is an area open to speculation.

I have explained the difference 2 or 3 times no, i wont repeat

 

[Theige]

The thing is, there's never been a "true" communist society. So we can't really judge it's effectiveness yet.

Nor will there ever be one.

 

[Karalysia]

Not in our lifetimes at any rate. Communism requires general abundance, and I hate to use Star Trek, but it would need something like Star Trek replicators.

 

[Bill3000]

I have explained the difference 2 or 3 times no, i wont repeat

Repeating that the earth is flat does not make you any more correct.

 

[amadeus]

Not in our lifetimes at any rate. Communism requires general abundance, and I hate to use Star Trek, but it would need something like Star Trek replicators.

I've always said that communism works great when there's unlimited resources and almost no work is required to get them.

 

[Karalysia]

I've always said that communism works great when there's unlimited resources and almost no work is required to get them.

Thats one of the requisite conditions of communism as per the stagiest view. A state of general abundance where people are no longer compelled to work out of necessity, but choose to work to peruse their own interests, their cultural and human development and so forth.

 

[Onionsoilder]

I've always said that communism works great when there's unlimited resources and almost no work is required to get them.

Capitalism also works great when there is unlimited resources. Huh. Well isn't that interesting.

 

[ilduce349]

Capitalism works better then communism in every situation, unless, everyone is identical

 

[Bill3000]

Capitalism also works great when there is unlimited resources. Huh. Well isn't that interesting.

Wait, what? No. Capitalism thrives on scarcity.

 

[sophie]

Wait, what? No. Capitalism thrives on scarcity.

This. If there were unlimited resources, then prices would plummet abysmally, and the suppliers wouldn't make any money.

Capitalism is based on the concept that you can't have unlimited anything, and the limited supplies are given to those who are able to pay for it.

 

[Merkinball]

How many other things do you use the same metal in a Ford Mustang's frame for? - Cheezy

I couldn't tell you off hand, but I will tell you that the goal of engineers is to create an entire platform of automobiles that maximizes the use of common materials and common components to smooth issues like these out. It's really the only area left to gain an edge up on your competitor. The company that uses the least amount of unique materials, and has the broadest platform designs will out compete the other. This, of course, doesn't count when you start looking at higher end manufacturer's, but their market is completely different.