| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Communist utopia
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Communist utopia

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2011 at 12:10
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Capitalism is not self-correcting. In many ways that's the worst thing about it. The theory that it was self-correcting depended on Say's Law being true, and Say's Law was exposed a long time ago, the events of '29-'39 being just the last nail in the coffin.
 


So says the challenging Keynesian economic model. However, too say that it is not self correcting is incorrectly stated as a fact instead of it being only an challenged opinion.
 
The Keynesian model is a modefied capitalist model. Neither Keynes nor his opponents ever said it was some sort of a new economic system. 
 

 
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Quote
Capitalism fails because it has no negative feedback built into it, and it therefore periodically crashes and has to be rescued by non-capitalist mechanisms. The welfare sate is an attempt to build in some negative feedback, but strictly the welfare state is not capitalist.


I fail to see in someways, how or why such measures are taken when rewards are foisted on the failures or the non-productive while punishment goes to success, venture capital, entrepreneurs and innovators. While in other ways, what i see of those that are rewarded for their failure, i most certainly do not like.
 
Anyone who still thinks capitalism has a built in reward/punishment system is living in a fantasy world. The true nature of the capitalist system is while it does reward some (but not all) successfull people, failures tend to crash the entire system on everyone whether they are successfull or not. Keynes realised that and realised also that regardless of how small government size is, government remaines (by virtue of it controlling the currency) the prime mover of the economy and thus part of the capitalist system. It is better to use such leverage to help the economy than pray that the market place will.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2011 at 12:11
I think i now understand what you have been saying? If i may, reply to most of your points:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:



Samples:
(1) Invention of the outsourcing. You rent specialists like you rent cars. The problem is, all the social protection and trade union forces get broken in the process.


Why do people think one of the reasons companies outsource? I could understand the need for social protection and in some cases the need for unionization, but the power of the unions had been phenomenal for most of the last century, and very little investigated.

Quote
(2) Moving companies following cheap labour overseas. Even help desk are now in India.


For now, until labor get near thoroughly unionized and it's power grows.

Quote
(3) Developing techniques for downsizing, destroying the productive basis of countries, in order to obtain immediate profits.


My own thoughts tend more to this being an effect of globalization and the development of countries so far not industrialized, rather than this being solely about greed by most companies.

Quote
(4) Encouraging immigration of cheap labour, forcing salaries to keep down.


The intrusion of politics into economics has somewhat muddled the picture here, i think. Cheap labor immigrants are attracted to where the jobs are. And there are tons of jobs in the US that are there for the taking. Unfortunately it is manual labor, and as you say, low pay.

Quote
(5) Increasing the labour pool. Even the women liberation has benefited mainly to capitalists, that now have twice the labour pool for the same money.


Says you. Many feminists would scratch your eyes out for making such a generalized male chauvinist statement as that. They say the disparity of incomes is a shame of the system rather than a benefit. I have always preferred to stay out of this one.

Quote
(6) Making huge benefits saling guns, pornography and drugs, while keeping with traditional business like tobacco, alcohol, gamble and prostitutes.


Come now. No need to be a hypocrite. These are vices of human nature and not any particular fault of  any economic system.

Quote
(7) Increasing the cost of goods and services. From notebooks to medicine, "innovation", that many times is just market labeling, prevent goods and services for a decline in prizes, so people must continue financing the huge margins of those industries.


Will now, i do agree with you, some of the marketing ploys are ridiculous and yet regretfully effective.

Quote
(10) Forcing labour to get educated, and to get university degrees, but keeping the salaries frozen. That way, all the extra effort is payed by the worker with zero investment on the part of the company.


Education is a benefit that should never be discouraged. However, you have a point. Those having degrees and a job are the lucky ones. A freshly minted degree anointed to the recently graduated is increasingly being viewed meaningless.

Quote
(11) Increasing authomatizing and computing, so the human resources are each time less in number.


Well yeah, but there are some things a automation and computer can't do, like revolt and unionize. And god help us if we ever give them that function, which in our infinite stupidity seem bound to do, just to make our lives more comfortable!


Quote
It is undeniable that capitalism is at work. The problem is that today is less patriotic and human than ever. Where are the Henry Fords that dreammed of making cheap cars for the working class? Or the Howard Huges that build an airplane industries for his country?

The problem is, people get tired of capitalism and sooner of later we will have another French or Russian revolution. This time at global scale, I am afraid.


I tend to disagree, the dreamers are still there, and always way be. However, rather than be rewarded with success for the fruit of the labor or innovations, as of now, i think more dreams and visions are being stifled with growing interferences and countless regulations that were not there fifty years ago.

I don't think people are getting tired of it, rather than more of an ebb and flow, growth and a slow down,  that this country of mine has experienced most often in it's history. However, i think you may be onto something, when people are irrational in thinking that there are no other options open for them, revolution tend to be the result. Though i would think it would be more limited to a region or a locale rather than global? Unless of course the US were too disappear tomorrow with a international power vacuum being the result. Then yeah, i could see global chaos being the result.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2011 at 12:35
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Capitalism is not self-correcting. In many ways that's the worst thing about it. The theory that it was self-correcting depended on Say's Law being true, and Say's Law was exposed a long time ago, the events of '29-'39 being just the last nail in the coffin.
 


So says the challenging Keynesian economic model. However, too say that it is not self correcting is incorrectly stated as a fact instead of it being only an challenged opinion.
 
The Keynesian model is a modefied capitalist model. Neither Keynes nor his opponents ever said it was some sort of a new economic system. 
 


I know that and isn't what i had meant too imply. Same school of thought, differing opinions.

 
Quote
The true nature of the capitalist system is while it does reward some (but not all) successfull people, failures tend to crash the entire system on everyone whether they are successfull or not. Keynes realised that and realised also that regardless of how small government size is, government remaines (by virtue of it controlling the currency) the prime mover of the economy and thus part of the capitalist system. It is better to use such leverage to help the economy than pray that the market place will.
 
Al-Jassas


And what is a failures success story? GM? Ford? Chevrolet? Have they innovated, adapted or over come their problems? No they got bailed out of their own s#!t! It pains me too say this, but i'd rather buy a much more economically efficient Japanese import rather than from a local company that ignores the opinion of consumers while shoving their crap products onto a market that has no interest in what they have to sale. Our motor industry would have been better served if it was left to burn itself in it's own making and yes hurting others in the short term, but in the long term having left the door open for some regionally new competitor too come along and shake things up. Has that happened, i rather doubt it?

Further, i don't fully trust a government given that type of power over a nation's economy. As we can see the result of it is growing corruption and political cronyism to republican and democrats alike. It is coming to the point when i vote, that i don't know if i am voting for a particular politician or for a certain company to represent me? That is what it seems to me that government interventions in the economy seems to be doing to this country.


Edited by Panther - 04 Jul 2011 at 12:35
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2011 at 13:15
When it comes to bailouts, everyone was bailed out not just GM and Chrysler. Banks were bailed out, insurance companies were bailed out, so why not Detroit?
 
If this was an ordinary crisis I would generally agree that leaving Detroit to fall will not be the end of the world although it will shake the economy pretty badly. But back in 2009, you had 10% unemployment, 10% underemployment, consumer spending (65% of the economy) at record low with negative net savings by individuals and an already banking sector that was deep to its ear in debts given to Detroit. Allowing Detoit to fail would have rendered all the TARP and subsequent measures taken to solve the financial crisis (which had no direct connection to Detroit) useless.
 
Unemployment would have shot up to 15 or 16%, the banking system which was already near total collapse would have collapsed anyway. A negative feedback cycle (because of lack of spending due to unemployment) would have kicked in leading to even more unemployment and more collapse. This was exactly what happened in the crash of 29.
 
Saving Detroit not only saved 3 million jobs, it actually added some 1 million more. You might not like it but that is reality. Bailing Detroit and Wall $treet worked.
 
As for governments power over the economy, that comes with the definition of government whether you like it or not. Governments issue currencies, charter banks and conduct foreign trade. Government is also the largest single investor in the economy by virtue of its size and role. To say that you can have an economy without a a government is absolute absurdity. What you can have is less government intervention and that happens with strict smart government regulation. Had the banking industry in the US been regulated as it should be none of this would have happened. Wall $treet wouldn't have crashed, Detroit wouldn't have been bailed out and the economy although would definitely suffer from a dip due to bubble bursts would bounce back in no time.
 
Finally, politicians bring corruption to government not the other way around and they are helped by the electorate themselves. Look at Italy. Everyone knows how corrupt Berlusconi is yet the Italian people keep electing him giving him more power every time. Same thing applies in the US where relatively less corrupt politicians are fired and replaced (by large margins) by the scum of the earth as happened in Florida where they have a convicted fraudster as governor.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Harburs View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3144
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Harburs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2011 at 14:38
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

What happened with the communist Utopia? We all know it didn't work, but why it didn't work?

Comments, please.
I think the rivalry with US and arm race put a large pressure on Soviet union people. Specially if we consider the Russia was devastated by world war II and it took many years to reach to the point that Americans were after world war II. US had the advantage of being far away from Europe and did not experienced a harsh destruction of industrial planets or agricultural fields. during the war and even after the war many riches of Europe were transferred to US for better investment by wealthy individuals. Many technical experts and scientist emigrated to US during the course of the war that boosted the American economy and educated workforce. Soviet Union on the other hand left with many poor republics that even needed the Russian help to maintain their basic level of living. I am not fond of Communism, yet I think they could do better if they hadn't had the rivalry with us and specially the space and arm race which made them bankrupt.


Edited by Suren - 04 Jul 2011 at 16:27
"Turn yourself not away from three best things: Good Thought, Good Word, and Good Deed" Zoroaster.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2011 at 16:19
So i won't high jack this one, i have a reply for you in a new thread here,

http://www.allempires.net/forum/topic126779_post63680.html#63680

where this subject can be continued.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2011 at 22:36
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Capitalism is not self-correcting. In many ways that's the worst thing about it. The theory that it was self-correcting depended on Say's Law being true, and Say's Law was exposed a long time ago, the events of '29-'39 being just the last nail in the coffin.
 


So says the challenging Keynesian economic model. However, too say that it is not self correcting is incorrectly stated as a fact instead of it being only an challenged opinion.
It's not just an opinion. Throughout the history of capitalism the system has veered from one crash to another, usually after a long period of peace, during which capital has accumulated into ever fewer hands, and inequality increased. There were slumps as early as the 14th century in Italy, but the picture doesn't get really clear until the last traces of feudalism fade away in the 19th. Keynes did not invent the sub-optimum equilibrium out of theoretical bases: he was confronted with a situation in the '30s that classical economics said was impossible: an underemployed equilibrium, and that had to be accounted for.
 
And when the economy is collapsing because too many people don't have enough money (as in the US currently), the only was out, Keynes or not, is to transfer it from the people who do have it. Printing money is of course not the only way to do that. But any way you do it sends the people with the money up the wall screaming about rewards and punishments, followed by the people who have fallen for their moralistic propaganda.
 
It isn't a question of rewards and punishment, or morality in general. It's more like oiling the mechanism so it doesn't seize up.

Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2011 at 23:59

One question is if there was any "communist model" in the proper sense. Where the communist parties won power over nations they did it under extraordinary cirkumstances: during or just after the world wars or other wars. Wether or not they had any detailed plans (a good question), they had to improvise.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jul 2011 at 00:31
I don't think anyone would seriouosly argue that the Soviet occupied countries were examples of the Marx-Engels model of the state that was going to wither away.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Cywr View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 6075
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cywr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jun 2012 at 02:54
Communism maybe good at mobilising a workforce, that is to say getting subsistence farmers off their land, and into factories, or at the very least into bigger and more productive farms, its not particularly good at increasing efficiency. So after an initial period of industrialisation and general rapid growth, it stagnates. Which is exactly what you had in the USSR, rapid economic growth (by the standards of the day) till the early 70s, and then near stagnation.

So at best its a profoundly illiberal national development policy. But not that much use for countries that are already highly urbanised.


Edited by Cywr - 24 Jun 2012 at 02:55
Back to Top
charles brough View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Location: california
Status: Offline
Points: 10
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote charles brough Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Sep 2012 at 05:14
Originally posted by Anton Anton wrote:

It didn't work for economical reasons mainly. People need rewards and competitions to be successful and communism system did not offer such things. Enormous success of USSR in 50s-60s happened because of postwar enthusiasm of soviet people but it could not last for long. 
Yes, this is a key necessity for communism to work in anything but small groups.
 
After all, we did evolve through millions of years as small hunting-gathering group primates. We are brain stem shaped to a list of social instincts which we never put into words because they were there before we developed language and ideology.  Our language achievement enabled us to spread a common ideology (a common way of thinking) to much larger groups. We can, as a matter of fact, only think in words . . .
 
When we try to move the communal way of the small group to the looser, ideologically bonded and larger group or nation, we encounter problems.  The individual can feel a common sense of community, even patriotism, but he cannot push himself to work hard just to benefit a mass of people who he will never see. We are able, researchs find, to connect with at most a couple hundred people, not millions of them.
 
So, if we try to impose communal living on a nation, communism not only has to be its ideological goal (as is Marxism) but need, as well, the threat of being invaded by people who would treat us like dirt. After WWII, that patriatism died a slow death in the Soviet Union and the world ended up with a version in China that chose the model of Singapore and adopted capitalism while still keeping the ideology. (Singapore also dropped the ideology.) 
BROUGH,
http://civilization-overview.com
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.