|
Is Communism good? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
375 | 66.25% |
| No |
|
191 | 33.75% |
| Total: | 523 votes | ||
|
Communism, as in worker control over production, is good. But communism the word is intrinsically linked to the failures of USSR and PRC, which is why you can't say that. It's a bit like "whenever you say capitalism i think Nazi germany". The metaphor has actually nothing to do with capitalism, nor is the logic that "nazi germany = bad, nazi germany = capitalist, capitalism = bad" in any way shape or for reasonable, even though it was a capitalist country.
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Some of them had feathers. Venomous posted:when it's reached through libertarian socialist means, then yes Dinosuars had feathers because of libertarian socialism? 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Jaded Samurai posted:
Communism isn't against the idea of personal property, just private property. You can "own" most things you already do, clothes, furniture, a dishwasher, you just can not own a house, a factory, a river or 5000 acres of forest. Communism isn't coming to take away your PS4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property Essentially all of the the people you mentioned above would benefit from communism (what exactly is a dissenter?). Of course, if they align themselves to hold onto capitalism that is area of conflict. White Rock fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Jan 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Sure you can keep any of the awesome consumer electronics brought to you by the communist world. That and your patch of ice and 3 potatos
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Here's a good article about our beloved consumer electronics captains of industry in Silicon Valley, the great figureheads of the successes capitalism; and how they actually know that their days are numbered because a revolution is coming, and are loving quaking in their boots in fear at the specter of communism: The funniest poo poo about that article is the CEO of Reddit being an idiot prepper getting ready to defend his property with a bow and arrow.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Marx ultimate point was that the downfall of capitalism was inevitable, since it contains paradoxes which it cannot resolve. All and any attempts to "reform" capitalism into a humane model have failed or is in the process of failing. At some point or another capitalism devolves into either feudalism or communism.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
OtherworldlyInvader posted:What are your historical examples of capitalist countries devolving into feudalism and communism? If feudalism/communism is the natural equilibrium can you demonstrate several example states which have settled into feudalism/communism from a capitalist system? If again feudalism/communism is the natural equilibrium, what force overcame that equilibrium and made feudal European states liberalize their economies over the last half a millennium, and caused the former USSR states and PRC to embrace aspects of capitalism over the last half century? Historical examples is a bad way to argue for societal change, especially when we are talking about a future potential society. And your examples has nothing to do with the paradoxes of the capital. If we were in the a couple of century's in the past , how could you argue for democracy using existing examples? All former democracies had fallen to dictatorships, and kings have been working out for years. And the french revolution, what a disaster. Your arguments must come from pointing out flaws in the internal system as is, or in the human nature that uses it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
I admire the optimism of thinking capitalism will last forever after president Cheeto Puff just got elected.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Social democracy really can only exist if capital feels there is a more pressing existential threat to its existence ie the Soviets. Basically, you need radical leftists to take over a major country and at least be some what successful in managing it (not Venezuela). Also Social Democracy can only be achieved when labor is in high demand and immobile. Raising any taxes, setting regulations, or demanding (expensive) worker rights is a sure fire way to get your factory or workplace shipped to Eastern Europe, Mexico or Asia. Or to be replaced with migrant workers from those places. Edit: Of course the same migrant workers are also pushed to this by the whims of capitalism. But it does create a conflict of interests which is detrimental.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Admittedly, the threat of another ideological rival may limit this (it is arguable) a bit since the threat to the entire system itself is more tangible. Obviously, globalization happened during the Cold War but it could be argued it really became supercharged during the 1990s. Indeed, although i believe it is the material conditions more than the ideology that does this. The fact that china/eastern Europe was communist made it not only ideologically but more importantly, materially impossible to create globalization. Even if communism was dead, if the markets remained closed and first world labor was in high demand social democracy could potentially be alive and well. But instead, the 1980 Regan and Thatcher policies of opening up markets, crippling unions and world trade followed by rapid globalization have decimated Social Democracy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Anyway, if another major leftist country gets a shot they really really really need to back off of price controls for food and consumer goods, they absolutely don't work. One thing a socialist country if it wants to survive if going to have to adopt market pricing of some form. Nationalization and even some form of central planning could work, but not if prices are static. In a true communism economy prices are set after the production quotas and need, "market" prices are to be avoided. With control over the means of production and the ability to set production levels, prices can be set to reasonable amounts. Failure of price controls stem from not having the controls of the means and materials of production. If you posses the flour and the ovens, you can make as much bread as you like and set whatever price you'd like. What's really needed is transparency and direct democracy through councils, so one can avoid corruption. Otherwise there will be lies of the output amounts leading to inefficiencies, backstabbing to try to increase rank and unscientific methods being promoted. The failure of all communist states is the failure of authoritarianism. (and not waiting for the collapse of capitalism)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:So to protect workers' rights immigration should be stopped? What needs to be done is different from observing what is occurring. Capital wants the workers here for cheap labor. Workers in the host country are hurt by this competition, so they want it to stop. Populists wanting to capitalize politically on this wants to align themselves with the workers. Neo liberals wants to align themselves with companies, growth and free trade. ---- For a communist, it also depends on your outlook. If your an internationalist, immigration either does not matter or is a boon. They will twiddle their thumbs until capitalism crashes. If you believe in that are beneficial nation states as a communist, building class conscious means the need for a shared material agenda. Since existing workers and migrant workers are in conflict, the globalist policies such as work immigration and open borders should be closed. Each nation must fight it's own class struggle is their view. Maoism Third Worldism believes that the "third world" will rise up and liberate the rest with minimal purging. Take your pick.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Immigrants only bring wages down because they are not offered the same rights as citizens. If they received all the benefits and protections of citizenship, immigration would strengthen the power of the working class in any country, not weaken it. Immigrants also are forced to travel because of the ravages of war and imperialism, and workers should oppose these activities from their government in solidarity with the workers who are suffering at the other end. Class consciousnesses is built on shared interest. At the moment, we in the first world are acting as a sort of global bourgeoisie. It's in the self interest of first world wage workers of country to resist immigration. As the bourgeoisie will not give up their wealth voluntary so too will the workers of the first world not give up theirs voluntary. If there was a global equalization, the working class in first world countries would be losing a lot of their current privileges. When again they are on the bottom tier of exploitation, they will have a common goal with all workers across the globe. The fact that our everyday lives right now is built on exploitation, and that first world workers buying shoes made by sweat shop workers. This prevents a global class consciousness from forming, and is something one has to deal with. Thus either you accept that the third world must lead the revolution and wait patiently, or you believe that nation states themselves can prepare individually. If nationalism is a useful tool then use it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:Of these, prohibition has been overturned. The rest have been so deeply ingrained into society that very few parties dare even hint at overturning them. Those that do are in the marginal. Policy and ideology are different. The fact that the rotten out husk of social democracy is still standing does not mean that there is any future in social democracy. Slowly but surely the insides of welfare programs, job security and Hob_Gadling posted:No sane social democrat wants to be called a communist. No social democratic party wants the "aid" of communists. You know that the goal of every social democracy was to bring socialism to life through reform right? That they splintered from the revolutionary communists? It was written in their party programs up until everyone went third way socialist in the 90's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Considering how rough of a shape workers in the first world already have it, that seems to be a recipe for assuring fascism triumphs completely. If you tell people they have to accept an even crappy quality of life then already have they are going to revolt. Oh don't misunderstand me, i am for a nation based approach. I believe that individual nations can create strong bases for socialism, and that each nation must fight their own class struggle. The current wage migration is also elongates the suffering under capitalism. . We are heading towards a ecological and material crisis, and as such a global approach will be chaotic anarchy of hundreds of revolutions. One can build a movement in one country to resist fascist capitalism that will emerge and try to prevent as many deaths as possible when the globalist supply chain finally falters and the trains of food from half a continent away stops rolling in. Redefining a nations values to socialist ones is a effective banner to rally people under. When i pitch my politics, number one thing i hear when i get past peoples defenses is "I don't want to suffer like the third world suffers.". it is not a tactic to win hearts and minds.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:If there truly is a difference in class interest between the middle class white citizen and the undocumented immigrant worker, but you decide to side with the former against the latter, then as a communist I must consider you my political opponent. Who said middle class? Working class in first world countries have a different short term material interest then undocumented immigrants. If Jaun mops the floor at the McDonalds for money under the table that removes job opportunity from the working class and creates conflict of interests. Go on, try to build a movement on that. The levering power of the proletariat is that they are the majority. Undocumented immigrants are not. I am not making a moral point here, i am just stating facts.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:I understand this, which is why I'm actually engaging with your arguments and considering them seriously. Call it "middle class", "labour aristocracy", "petite bourgeoisie", or "first world proletariat", I'm not sure - but the argument is that this constitutes a separate class with distinct and conflicting interests from those of the third world proletariat and migrant workers, correct? The current populist movements are split down the middle whether they go right wing (UKIP, Trump etc) and populist left wing (Podemos, Five Star, Corbyn(who incidentally just came out as for increased border control)). These show that we are a at a divergence in the road, not a singular turn towards the right. As capitalism collapses we need to be ready, and the way to build a movement has always been to engage in nations people. From the french to the american to the USSR, nations are the groundwork of revolution. The alternative so far has been a USSR like expansion, a sort of forced revolution.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:I absolutely do not, in fact I consider Cuba to be one of the most successful examples of a socialist revolution in history. I am not dismissing all the refugees and migrant workers, they are part of national liberation movement if they feel part of the nation. But those who do not consider themselves part of the nation will act reactionary in face of upheaval, and the existence of diasporas inside countries create potential conflict that leads to balkanization in case of crisis. Ethnic differences and strife is still alive and well in TYOOL 2017, if Syria has anything to teach us. There is also a general argument within the left that as many people of the third world should be shunted into the first because it will improve their conditions and help with the revolution. I think it's counterproductive and quite dangerous for everyone involved, because when things break down the one of the first things the masses do is to find themselves an enemy of the inside to conquer and purge. OtherworldlyInvader posted:What are "reasonable amounts" for prices, and what consumer goods are being priced unreasonably? From a nearby big box store I can buy a dozen eggs for $1.08, 5lbs of flour for $2.65, a gallon of milk for $2.74, a shirt for $2.88, a pair of tennis shoes for $10.00, a pair of jeans for $16.77, and a 55" 1080p LED TV for $378.00. Are these prices reasonable? The resources you spend is man hours and the raw materials of the land, of which the second there have to be surveys. Work is based on man hours it took create something. So a shirt is the "man hours" to grow the cotton + to harvest + to spin + to weave + to dye + to sew + to transport and so on.. You earn what you work, and as such the supply of "money" is always constant. The resources you spend is man hours and the raw materials of the land, of which the second there have to be surveys. If you spend more man hours on producing something, the price will increase. Any system must some kind of feedback loop, but it will the role of planners to estimate need and plan accordingly. Any production level is planned in advance. If you've made a miscalculation, you've adjust for the next batch. Any extra man hours spent are added to the price. If there is overproduction or underproduction the price stays the same, excess material is recycled, and you adjust the output. There is no excess money, since there is no "profit" to speak of. Credits are made and credits are spent. The argument against capitalism is that prices are set to maximize profit then on any actual merit. Cars with trim packages that cost 30% for example. It also irrational in many ways, see the way we tossed thousands of pounds of pork during the great depression to try to stabilize prices.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:Do you seriously not see the enormous problem with this? I forgot to mention that in the full theory the cost of tools and machinery as well as included in the price. So an as a baker, the wear and tear on the oven is included in the price of the bread. But i was answering a question, not giving a lecture. Higsian posted:If you're going to have some form of buying then prices of goods should be based on supply and demand. A worker can be paid by the labour they do (and perhaps some small deviation based on need or difficulty or how little people want to do it) if the system allows that (aka the government subsidises in some fashion) because that is what is fair. But if you ever sell anything for less than what someone is willing to pay for it, then there will be a black market. You need to set a goods' price such that every person who is willing to pay that price or more gets as much of that good as they want at those prices. Otherwise people buy it to resell it. If you have a a shortage of what people need, then that is your point of failure. Your economy should be robust enough that there is enough of the necessary items. If you have a surplus, great! If you have complete control of the economy, you can also limit purchases if necessary to dissallow cheating. Give an example of what people would resell provided there isn't a shortage. White Rock fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
OtherworldlyInvader posted:So in effect you are proposing we adopt work-hours as a unit of currency, which would necessitate that any hour of labor performed has the same value as any other. So in order to produce a wooden table, one work hour logging (one of the most dangerous occupations in the US) to produce the raw materials has the same value as one hour driving the truck to transport the finished goods (a significantly safer occupation)? Is one work-hour of a surgeon performing surgery worth the same as one work hour of a security guard monitoring cameras? What happens if a job demands high levels of physical exertion, and laborers are unable to perform as many work-hours a day as other occupations? Are they doomed to poverty? Who decides who gets what job, and what if nobody wants to do a job? Yes. Same work, same pay. No extra for professions. Students receive a free education and a scholarship similar to a wage to compensate for lost "wages", but that is it. Possibly some compensation for dangerous work (or just don't do it). These things are not really set in stone, but it ain't hard to figure out solutions. Jobs are distributed via systems similar to education selection. You make your first, second and third choices, and do some tests. The most apt gets the first pick, and so on. OtherworldlyInvader posted:Who owns the means of production, the central planners or the workers? If goods are worth the work hours it takes to make them, and it takes me 5 hours to bake a batch of bread, and it takes my coworker 4 hours to bake an identical batch of bread, what is the value of the bread 4 or 5 work-hours? If any extra work-hours spent are added to the price, why wouldn't all of us take as long as possible to make the least amount of bread possible? Private property is held in common. Think of your apartment. You use it, and your landlord owns it. Now think of your landlord being an institution you hold sway over, together with the other renters. If you control the organisation that controls the apartment, who owns it? If your a slow baker, then the bread becomes more expensive (just like in a capitalist economy, since your costing a company money, a bread that takes more man hours to make is more expensive.) Your output would probably be mixed together with the other bakers at the bakery, so in total it would be manageable, unless your all terrible bakers. At which point someone in the chain would notice that the hours being spent are not giving the output they want, and demand answers. You can still be dismissed for being a layabout. But since your producing for no one else but to give bread to the people, one would hope that you would be motivated to do your fair share. Higsian posted:Well if you never have a shortage you'd never have to worry about supply and demand for pricing. I'm assuming there will be shortages though and hoping there will be a system in place to account for when it does. I guess a very simple system of supply&demand would be to set base prices from labour, then aim to create enough that supply covers demand, and then whenever you fall short then you up the price until demand at that price is equal to the supply. Yeah alright, good poits. When you said market based pricing i though that would be the default rather then used as error correction. I think that it totally depends on the situation, rationing is an effective mean for insuring a fair and even distribution of goods that are few, rather then letting the ones with the most savings get the goods. I can recommend Towards a new Socialism by Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell for a great analysis of a potential socialist economy. Lots of tables and equations for those interested. White Rock fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Jan 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
OtherworldlyInvader posted:Ok so lets say you have a factory that manufactures computer chips. Running this factory requires highly complex machinery which becomes obsolete rapidly, large clean-room facilities, ect. which results in massive fixed costs. The only way manufacture of computer chips is at all viable is by running the factory 24/7 with rotating shifts in order to minimize overhead. Well in your extremely strict and limited example where the only answer is what you said, i guess the only solution is to either have a slight pay upgrade (because this place is apparently the worst place ever? ) or compel people either through the fact that it's the only jobs left OR by just ordering them. Like"HEY, HEY JOEL AT THE BIKE FACTORY, IT'S YOUR TURN FOR THE MONTHLY/YEARLY SHIFT AT THE lovely COMPUTER FACTORY" or something. If there is a special case, think of a solution that seems good, and then apply it. Again, if nobody wants to work there maybe re evaluate the need to make work happen in this way. I'm not an anarchist, there can be systems of coercion. Also, Communism is from "each according to his ability to each according to his need", not "FREE STUFF FOR ALL AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO poo poo". The system still has to work, things still have to get made. Second point: Okay, but you can imagine how such a system would be fair and balanced? OtherworldlyInvader posted:But if we actually look at the demographics of who voted Trump, it's wealthier people on average than those who voted Clinton, the same demographics as with past republican candidates. And the poorest are the ones who didn't vote at all! But the switch of the rust belt states showcases that people are economically fed up. The rural is what's dying, urban poor are still in a pretty good shape comparably. I don't buy the "White supremacy" argument as an explanation why Trump won. You can see clearer demographic trends among the European populists. I believe nationalism can be emancipatory, as it has been in the past. I feel like we're talking around each other, I should probably mention i'm from Sweden, so my particular batch of right wing populism might differ in a significant way from yours. My main concern is has shifted from our muslim hating right wing populist to the ineffectual left hamstrung by trying to appear moral and propping up terrible globalist systems and making GBS threads alllll over the stupid racist rural deplorables who have lost their jobs and who's towns are turning into ghost towns. And one of their biggest bug bears is to ignore all problems regarding ethnic differences and conflict of interests "because those things aren't really real". We have for example a growing amount immigrants, for example Kurdish and Assyrians, now voting for our populist right winger since they have promised to clean up the streets from gangs and violence, to the horror of the left. So i am bit weary when someone says there can never be an issue regarding people and migration.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Abolishing private property means stealing everything from anyone who has anything. Private property != personal property. Communism is not intrested in your body pillow collection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property Raere posted:This is one of the key reasons that full communism isn't feasible for humanity as we are now. We're selfish and lazy creatures motivated by greed. Communism assumes that people will work for the greater good. The fact is that humans as a whole are not like that. We need motivation like money to compel us to work harder. Funny, i don't remember greed being part of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:If you pay people based on hours worked rather than what they actually accomplish you will incentivize slacking off, and also don't provide a good reason to make work more efficient. Like, lots of people get paid an hourly wage, but the money for that still comes from someone being willing to buy the product or service they are providing. You mean the problem most office jobs have where the employers are being payed to browse reddit and masturbate in the bathroom? Hmm, how do employers solve that now again? I answered this in the other post answering a question just like this, just like in every other job on the planet, your output will be tracked and compared. Slacking of will lead too consequences, including dismissal. If the entire workplace is under performing, questions will be asked. OtherworldlyInvader posted:If the computer chip factory forces all its new hires to work the graveyard shift for an indefinite period of time, and also pays the same rate as every other employer, how does it get workers when they can instead choose to work in a shoe factory which only operates during the day? Here, you are very fond of questions aren't you? I've answered quite a lot of yours, here, have some back. Why are people trapped in meaningless jobs that they hate? Why does a large part of the third world work 12 hour shifts making electronics for westerners? Why is so much research focused on curing baldness and impotence rather then malaria prevention? Why has wages stayed flat for the last 40 years while productivity has doubled? Why are the worlds nations so powerless to act to face a very real climate threat? Why does the economy crash and burn like a dumpster fire every 4-10 years or so? Is that really the signs of a healthy and sane economic system? Why are the socialist economies slowly but surely dismantling their welfare systems? White Rock fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Jan 27, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:I leafed through this book since it's freely available. It seems like it'd build a DDR-like system with all the black markets, coercion and problems that existed in that arguably most successful communist system. The book is hilariously blind to its own stupid ideas. One of the main purposes of economic policy is to make sure people are employed, but there's no way to really control whether people do a good job. Threat of getting fired is irrelevant because you're essentially guaranteed another job and working harder doesn't earn you anything extra. The book makes the same lame plead you did: people would want to work harder because communism. I myself find it hilarious that the best counter argument against it you can come up with is that people will not work unless under threat of starvation or greed. That mankind is poisoned at its core and if you don't hover a sword of Damocles over everyone heads there everything would fall apart, that you need immediate danger to whip the lower classes into shape. No wonder so many capitalists are closet fascists. Also, being from one of those terrible Scandinavian health care systems, i can tell you it's no biggie, and i much prefer having a cap of 300 € a year for medical expenses rather then running the risk of having too declare medical bankruptcy. I really couldn't consider living in the third world country called USA.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:People react to incentives. The system in the book removes incentives and gives nothing to replace them except a warm fuzzy feeling that you're doing the Right Thing and coercion. Some would work because they enjoy it but most wouldn't. Working is something we do because we must. Incentives are just negated coercion. Also, money is scientifically the worst kind of way to incentive mental tasks. People react way better to feeling like they are doing something meaningful, that they have control over their life or expressing themselves. This idea that nobody would want to be a doctor unless they were paid more then average wage is ludicrous. If your not convinced, the book specifically addresses the potential need to give extra incentive's to jobs with high risk of injury or if there is a shortage in a critical field. Also, coercion is like the biiiig game of capitalism. Benefits withdrawn if you don't move to this place where there are jobs, losing healthcare, potential homelessness and eventual starvation for those lacking social nets. Capitalism is if anything the king of coercion, not incentives. Hob_Gadling posted:You misunderstood my point apparently. The point is that limited supply is regulated by prices or queues. The book wants to remove price as a mechanic. What do you think happens when you do that? If you actually read the book, you would know that it doesn't disqualify the raising of prices to balance supply and demand of goods. It places it in context with market subsidies and rationing. Chapter eight, like three pages in. Hob_Gadling posted:Being a social democrat, I believe health care is one of the main functions of a welfare state and it should (mostly) not be privatized, so please don't bring that strawman up again.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:incentive: people will do things if they believe them to be meaningful (such as studying to become a doctor). Okay you are just too full of contradictions to understand... You reject people being motivated to do work because they are doing a good thing. Hob_Gadling posted:The system in the book removes incentives and gives nothing to replace them except a warm fuzzy feeling that you're doing the Right Thing ----- Hob_Gadling posted:But doesn't "market-clearing prices" sound suspiciously like market pricing --- Hob_Gadling posted:I'm sorry, I thought you said you "much prefer having a cap of 300 € a year for medical expenses rather then running the risk of having too declare medical bankruptcy". The very post your actually quoting posted:Former social democratic states are currently dismantling their welfare systems to feed the fires of capitalism. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:"Are Capitalists a Community?" is a legit question. And I think it gets at one of the big contradictions within Marxism. The factory boss who earns a wage is different from the capitalist who earns a living on the growth of company. It's not about class vs self interest. Lets rewrite the analogy. You own a large share of a large shoe and clothing company. You together with your likeminded stock owners together elect a CEO, which in turn controls the chain of command down the lonely worker. That means you are ultimately in charge. Your income depends on the companies growth: you only get money when the money pays dividends, which it can only do when it grows. If the company you own simply sold the same amount of shoes as last year for the same price at the same cost, you would earn nothing. In fact, part of your investment would be eaten up by interest. Thus you have a vested interest in making sure your investment, your big pile of money, is somewhere which will continue to grow. So you have a built in incentive to pressure the company into cutting cost, increase the potential customer base or increase the price. Thusly, the CEO moves the production to Cambodia. Meanwhile, the company who dosen't move production gets outcompeted. Even if you personally cash out, someone else will buy your stocks if the company is profitable. If it's not, everyone will sell and start over in a new company that will use the same tactics for the same reasons. Besides, you can probably buy a pretty good yatch while reinvesting part of the dividends, so why would you cash out? It would be like quitting your job and living the rest of your life on your savings. This is even less true for hedge funds, and all the other companies in which you do not actually own the money you are investing. This is why capitalism MUST continue to expand. If capitalism ever reached a point where the economy could not expand, the system would collapse. If any individual decides that to try not to be beholden to the laws of capital, they will find themselves outcompeted, and replaced by more ruthless capitalists. Any CEO which does not keep profitability as no.1 will be fired.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:This is wrong. Dividends aren't shares in growth (what a weird idea), they're just shares in profits. It's entirely possible for your company to make fewer sales at identical prices this year than it did last year while paying you a greater dividend if the contraction in sales is more than offset by a reduction in costs. Huh yeah you right, i got dividends and capital gain mixed up, my bad. As for the second point i mention cost cutting as a potential strategy. White Rock posted:So you have a built in incentive to pressure the company into cutting cost, increase the potential customer base or increase the price. Still, the point of the distributed interests of investors, separate from the factory owners, incentives growth still stands. As does the nature of that competition. This was all in response to falcon2424 idea that growth doesn't have to be inherent to capitalistic systems. Do you agree with that hypothesis?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Besides just saying lol I've been wanting a reminder as to why, for example, democracy didn't end in say the robber barron era or at any other time in the past 200+ year history of democracy coexisting with private ownership of the means of production if such a thing is impossible. He is saying that it's not really democracy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Dude, if you can't answer the question just stop. Why are you currently working hard for a job that does not give you a % of the profit? Anarchism itself would probably be more inefficient than capitalism. I mean, few people actually wants to build, run and work in Chinese style mega sweatshops. The question then would be what would actually be necessary to produce, and if we have enough of that. So especially food, shelter and energy. Probably you wouldn't have a new iPhone model every year, but that's the trade off you will make.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:It doesn't concern you that you're going to get out-competed pretty quickly in any scenario where anarcho-communism doesn't sweep every corner of the globe simultaneously? I myself have no problems with a state. It is very possible to have a central state controlled by direct democracy like systems. But in either that or anarchism my thinking is the same: It is inevitable that there will come a point where capital is also starved for resources, as the paradoxes of capital show themselves, that is a time to strike. At that point there is equal footing, since capitalism will be mired with the issues it cannot deal with: Heavy unemployment, lack of shelter in cities where the few jobs are, poverty leading to a failing welfare apparatus, the state retreating from the periphery to the center. Communism solves a lot of these problems, by simply ignoring capital issues and building anyway. Take the 2008 housing bubble collapse, where homes stood empty while people went homeless. Think the nimby-ism preventing the construction of low income housing. Or the necessity of planned obsolescence in capitalism that has no purpose in other systems. I myself believe a state like apparatus is the best to deal with taking care of so many people, anarchism is inherently local by design. The idea for anarchism would be to be self sufficient, and the greater sense of freedom and security would compensate for the lower levels of production. Capitalism is efficient in serving the rich and powerful, not at providing for the poor. Until that point, one should focus on simple issues. Give people what they need. Peace land and bread for the modern age, perhaps: "Jobs, Welfare and safety!" If capitalism is not inertly paradoxical and driving towards it's own demise then Marx was wrong at the core.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Well I mean this really is the nub of the issue, isn't it? The very same issues, like automation of labour, that a lot of leftists seem to take as indicators that Capitalism must fall soon because of rising unemployment and a widening wealth gap, indicate to me exactly the opposite. Capital is pulling away from flesh-power's ability to capture it. Physical security is not a special kind of labour-task, and its rapid automation makes the prospect of industry's reappropriation for emancipatory purposes by Labour ever more remote. Cryptographic securitisation of automated industry (which is already in-progress) seals it. It's a speculative and unfalsifiable point, but I'm not alone in thinking we have decent reasons for believing Marx understood the limitations of socialist production, which is at least partly why he thought revolution would occur first in the most heavily industrialised nations: you need Capitalist production to build it, then Labour can take it over and make it friendly to humanistic interests. But the corollary is that if Capital can successfully defend itself against the masses, the masses are utterly hosed. Oh i definitely agree, i am not a predicting a utopia as a given: i think there absolutely no guarantee of it. But the ones truly deluding themselves is the ones believing in a continued status quo, or that thinks our society will go back to a "normal" of say the 1970's. That liberal democracy and globalist capitalism will continue to rule the roost and that is great for everyone involved, and there is no reason what so ever to fight for any cause but liberal democracy and centrism. That is the real danger, and the problem i think many leftish are trying to address when they say "capitalism is slated to fall". That the liberal, democratic capitalism is doomed to degrade either into some kind of techno feudalism or into something Marxist. So we better prepare.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:So if I follow the line of conversation here, 1990s economic reform in the former USSR was awful, which retroactively justifies Stalin's atrocities, also Putin is good and not an imperialist. More like for all the glory of capitalistic reform the state of Russia still has major issues, and authoritarian power stays in control. Capitalism is not inherently democratic, nor is communism. Quick exercise, what is "good" in your view? Can you name a state that exemplifies it, and who's ideology is not currently falling apart?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It's 2017, not 1894. The debates are over and the case is closed. You can be a religious fanatic about anything but the glove really fits when it's an ideology based around a guy who said a bunch of weird psudo-mystical poo poo two centuries ago. You can use more modern economic frameworks (or data) to say almost anything - there is no reason to self-identify with Marx unless you're deliberately trying to drape yourself in that weird flag. Holy poo poo! Asdf just objectively proved that communism just doesn't work! Someone call Cuba and all social Democratic parties! Man gently caress, nice work on that, could you do conservatism next? I wish to scientifically make old religious people against abortion realize that progressive change is the only way forward. Oh and libertarianism wouldn't be hard at all. Neo liberalism? Hold on, I'll make a list. Oh and a question, how come that even thought nationalism was "proven wrong" it has had a huge resurgence? You know, with Trump and Brexit and all the far right parties in Europe? Any objective data on that?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
Question, what is the general take on say the french and american revolution, or smilar revolutions? Where they "worth it" it terms of body count? Why? Is the outcome all that matters? Would the American civil war be a good thing if the north would have lost?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
Bulgogi Hoagie posted:i don't know about theoretical foundations of marx but africa did pretty poorly 1960 onwards with self professed marxist governments and now that a lot of them liberalised around 20 years ago they've done a lot better so that must say something about marxism ahahhahahah yes keep disproving ideology with examples. Also the french revolution proved that democracy is unsustainable. caps on caps on caps posted:
In a spectrum between "full command economy" to "laissez faire, private fire departments", they've pretty far in the command direction.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:
well for one... Twenty seconds on wikipedia yeilds: posted:The SPD was established as a Marxist party in 1875. However, the SPD underwent a major shift in policies reflected in the differences between the Heidelberg Program of 1925, which "called for the transformation of the capitalist system of private ownership of the means of production to social ownership", Take Swedish Social Democrats, or Labour in UK which both had bringing about a socialist state as a stated party goal, but which was removed in the latest two decades. Social Democrats in Sweden for example has serious suggestions to bring about public ownership of companies, it was however rejected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_funds caps on caps on caps posted:
You seem to favor leftism, yet have a stiffy for opposing marxism, what is your ideology, pray tell? A capitalist with a progressive face? "I stand with her"?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Funny how communism is "dead" when globalist capitalism is on the retreat all across the western world.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Goa Tse-tung posted:the SPD isn't social democratic btw, ever since Schröder they are traitors to their own cause Man, gently caress third way socialism.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
Capitalist Economies are very good at producing large quantities of consumer goods, i don't really think any marxist dogma refutes that? It's their problem of dealing with externalities of production, such as the wellbeing of the workers (and later on, environment) that is critiqued, and that the inevitable accumulation and concentration of wealth into a single point is inherently destabilizing. Then there are inherent paradoxes resulting from profit minded thinking, such as the 2008 housing crisis, where we saw a rapid increase in both empty houses and homelessness...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 13:30
|
|