Communism - can it work; why/why not? (insurance, fee, profit)

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by Trackwatch

Parasites live off their host with no benefit to the host and in most cases harm is done to the host.

That would be great in the zoology forum. However in human civilizations invaders ended up becoming the military class that had to defend their possession. When Rome annexed a territory, they had to defend it.

[Trackwatch]

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

That would be great in the zoology forum. However in human civilizations invaders ended up becoming the military class that had to defend their possession. When Rome annexed a territory, they had to defend it.

They wouldn't be parasites then, more of a mutualism situation.

[Kenneth-Kaunda]

Originally Posted by Trackwatch

NO, he wants every aspect of people's lives to be controlled by the government, whom they marry, where they work, where they live, etc..

that's not true, and you would realise that if you had read the whole of the post.

I favour a form of democratic socialism , but one that veers as much towards the Marxist side as possible, without having severe repression.

as for the marriage issues you are hinting at, I would probably tend towards having civil unions for all people, and 'marriages' only as a religious choice, but with no legal bearing.

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by Trackwatch

They wouldn't be parasites then, more of a mutualism situation.

Yeah again, head for the zoology forum. The Vikings were and Mongols were more like predators before they settled and had to defend their new settlements. Same with the Normans in Britain or the Spartans in Messenia. Crackers will often take over a host and then patch the machine to keep it for their use. That is besides how symbiotic relationships may begin or decay in the first place. Its a fine line.


A shift to parasitism in the jellyfish symbiont Symbiodinium microadriaticum

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda

but too much choice is a bad thing, right?

for instance, many of the kids I meet these days (those that have the money) , have a standard mobile phone, an i-phone, an i-pad and probably a lap top as well.

point?

It's all about status and pecking order - encouraged by capitalist avarice.

so we can see that capitalism promotes greed even at an early age.

this is bad IMO.

That is not greed. That is simply consumption. To you that is excessive. To others it is enjoying life (or their pursuit of happiness). For some reason you think it is reasonable for a government to choose that for people.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

If we used the standard of Liberty described by John Locke we would never have the absentee ownership of land and natural resources. He said ownership belongs in the hands of the creator. We don't follow that at all.

Rape, robbery and taking a dump in public is also human nature. We stop harmful human nature with socialization.

You need to do much more than casually discard Marxism with an aphorism, especially as I keep pointing out, we are ~half Marxist already.

Capitalism also reaches a state contrary to human nature. The fatal flaw of capitalism is the expectation that geometric expansion lasts indefinitely. Speaking of human nature, it is human nature to fall for it every time. Capital is a short lived tactical advantage. If it fails to gain strategic resources it will die. Eventually the strategic resources will be so great, few tactical advantages will overcome it. Then we reach a state of master vs slave relationships where one class works while the other consumes.


Which capitalist society has survived over the long run? Marxism is a reaction to its failure. Marxist revolutions are just old fashion slave revolts but with a different flavor of moral philosophy. Marxism is capitalism. To make capitalism work again you have to destroy unearned value so that there are no strategic resources. Marxism is a fine system of destroying value. Once its all ashes the only think that can produce value is work, and all who wish to rent things out for a living will perish. Then everyone will sing the praises of capitalism again just as people begin to drop their shovels again to rent out the strategic resources.

Which Marxist society has survived more than a few decades? How many existed without dictatorships and authoritatrian governments?

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

Which Marxist society has survived more than a few decades? How many existed without dictatorships and authoritatrian governments?

China calls itself communist. Its not but it sure is a lot like what people think it is in central planning. Its industrializing and we are not. Either way China is something we are not and the myths we have about the creation of American wealth with the wonders of our superior system are exposed. Americans think that when they get on a raft and float down stream that its their political philosophy that drives them.

The secret to American wealth was that the land was free. Give me the content of North America and I will create a producer paradise too.


And who cares? Which capitalist society didn't fall apart?

Personally my bile production goes up for both the left and the right. Both are so uttery blinded. The conservatives rant all day about failed Marxist states when the theory is hardly more than a 150 years old. Meanwhile history is littered with failed states. How do you explain it? Where is the Republican rant about Marxism and the failure of the British Empire? Its always the same.

The people who had money in ancient Rome in the end put it to no practical use. They had parties while the frontier crumbled. When decision makers don't make product you end up with the court of Elagabalus. Egypt built huge tombs for one man. We are doing the same.

The land of the billionaire hobbiest is eternal.

Billionaire Koch Builds Frontier Town All His Own Near Aspen - Yahoo! Finance


When rent appears people who don't work get the money. They make the decisions. Since they don't inherently know how to produce, the capitalist paradise always dies.

[gwynedd1]

But speaking of Marx he sure seems rather double tongued on this point.

So here he says Americans are the worse off despite more access to land.

This cloven hoof (at the same time ass’s hoof) is also unmistakably revealed in the declamations of Henry George. And it is the more unpardonable in him because he ought to have put the question to himself in just the opposite way: How did it happen that in the United States, where, relatively, that is in comparison with civilised Europe, the land was accessible to the great mass of the people and to a certain degree (again relatively) still is, capitalist economy and the corresponding enslavement of the working class have developed more rapidly and shamelessly than in any other country!

Yet here he says in The Modern Theory of Colonisation:

ew, even those whose lives are unusually long, can accumulate great masses of wealth.” [14] The labourers most distinctly decline to allow the capitalist to abstain from the payment of the greater part of their labour. It avails him nothing, if he is so cunning as to import from Europe, with his own capital, his own wage-workers. They soon “cease... to be labourers for hire; they... become independent landowners, if not competitors with their former masters in the labour-market.” [15] Think of the horror! The excellent capitalist has imported bodily from Europe, with his own good money, his own competitors! The end of the world has come! No wonder Wakefield laments the absence of all dependence and of all sentiment of dependence on the part of the wage-workers in the colonies. On account of the high wages, says his disciple, Merivale, there is in the colonies “the urgent desire for cheaper and more subservient labourers — for a class to whom the capitalist might dictate terms, instead of being dictated to by them.... In ancient civilized countries the labourer, though free, is by a law of Nature dependent on capitalists; in colonies this dependence must be created by artificial means.

So now here he obviously sees the ability to disperse away from ground rents and make a living on available land as a competitor to wage slavery.

So why would anyone want to follow someone who does not even appear to be sane?

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda

Communism - much criticised by the Western countries but could it work given the right situation?

A lot of sheer ignorance on this thread. I'll do my best to counter-socialize all of the propaganda, disinformation and misinformation to which you've been exposed.

For starters, no State has ever used Communist property theory.

Remember your ECON 101 class. Communism, Socialism and Capitalism are property theories....they are not economic systems. Those theories only posit who should own or control Capital -- cash, credit, labor, land (when used to produce goods or provide services), tools, vehicles (when used to produce goods or provide services), machinery, equipment, natural resources, raw materials and semi-finished goods --- like valves, printed wire boards, motors, adaptors, couplings, etc (that is to say "parts" that when assembled result in a finished product).

Capitalism -- individuals control Capital
Socialism -- a group controls Capital -- note that the agent of Socialism is often government or bureaucracy, but it can be unions, cartels, associations, the military or any other group.
Communism -- Capital controlled by the people-at-large

Is a publicly traded corporation Capitalist or Communist?

Communist -- who owns the Capital? The people do. Granted, the "people" are limited to specifically share-holders, but anyone can be a share-holder. And yes, it's also true that amongst the share-holders, some share-holders are more equal than other share-holders, since "equality" is apportioned by the number of shares owned.

Nearly all countries use an hybrid Capitalist-Socialist theory -- including the US.

While property theories argue who should control Capital, Economic Systems attempt to answer three basic questions:

1] What should be produced?

2] How it should be produced?

3] For whom it should be produced?

The three economic systems in use today are: Free Market, Command and Traditional. The answer to each of those three questions is the economic system itself.

Example: What should be produced? The [Free] Market will decide. Or the Command Group will decide. Or Tradition will decide.

Is there a demand for corn? Yes. The Free Market demands corn, so it should be produced.

How should the corn be produced? The Free Market demands organic corn, and corn grown using neo-traditional farming methods, and apparently the Free Market also demands genetically engineered Franken-Corn that contains fish ass.

For whom should the corn be produced? The Free Market says corn should be produced for pop corn, for corn-on-the-cob, for ethanol, for alcoholic beverages, for animal feed, for succotash, cream of corn, canned corn, corn relish, corn flakes, corn meal, corn flour, corn starch, light corn syrup, dark corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup and many other things.

In the Command Economic System, those questions are answered not by the Market, but rather by the Command Group. The Command Group is often the government or bureaucracy, but not always.

Is there a demand for tomatoes? Yes, but the Command Group might decide that tomatoes should not be produced. The Command Group might reason that the tomatoes are costly to produce, do not have a good shelf-life, and cannot be exported, so producing tomatoes results in a net loss. The time, effort, money and resources would be better spent producing something that is more profitable.

How should the corn be produced? The Market demands organic corn, but the Command Group might decide that there is no benefit to producing organic corn, and only permit corn produced using neo-traditional farming methods or worse than that, only produce genetically modified corn.

For whom should the corn be produced? The Command Group might decide that the people can eat genetically engineered Franken-Corn that contains fish ass, and the Command Group can eat organically grown corn.

Note that while the Command Group is often government or bureaucracy, it can be any group. Unions are a Command Group. Instead of letting the Market determine wages, unions command what wages shall be paid. Cartels are Command Groups and often dictate what is produced as well as the price.

The American Hospital Association is also a Command Group. Instead of letting the Free Market set the price for open-heart surgery, the AHA dictates what that price will be. For example, in the Cincinnati MSA, the true cost of open-heart surgery is $13,000 but the AHA artificially inflates the price to $26,000 to $41,000 (depending on the hospital).

Obviously, you can see how harmful propaganda and disinformation are. You are being lied to, and because you are being lied to, you cannot see the Truth, and as a result, you make bad decisions....like Obamacare.

Traditional Systems are still used by tribal groups in the Americas, Africa and Asia. It is Tradition that decides what is produced, how it is produced and for whom it is produced, and that is based on local customs.

Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda

People say that if there is no incentive then no-one will work - but surely that is wrong.

Only the form is wrong. An accurate statement would be:

"If there is no incentive to work, then many people will not work, or will not put for much effort."

You have people right now who have no desire to work and only desire to take money from other people to fund their life-styles.

Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda

I imagine some kind of wage and price controls would be needed, and some limitations on freedom, but what are the main problems in stopping it from working?

And why do you imagine that?

You imagine that because you have been a victim of propaganda and disinformation.

We know that if you take Capitalist property theory and pair it up with Market Economics, it works. We also know that if you employ Socialist property theory with Market Economics, it works. Can you use Communist property theory with Market Economics?

Absolutely, yes.

Now you have something new to think about.

Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda

All big industries could be nationalised and the smaller ones would have to abide by specific regulations - ie: laws against hoarding , speculating, and wages etc..

What will go wrong here?

Everything.

The Invisible Hand rules. You cannot violate the Laws of Economics. In the end, the Free Market always wins. Always. It is undefeated, and there is nothing you could ever possibly do to defeat the Free Market.

The issue of who owns Capital doesn't really matter -- so long as you comply with the Laws of Economics. The State can surely own natural resources, but the minute the State sets wages below Market rates, or above Market rates, or prices that are below or above Market prices, then you have failed. An host of problems will besiege you.

The issue with Unions is not so much that they exist, rather the issue is that Unions violate the Laws of Economics. Unions threaten, coerce and intimidate employers to pay above Market wages.

How'd that work out for everyone?

A combination of very bad Foreign Policy and Unions has created a situation in which Americans are over-paid, and so America cannot compete globally, and what is happening? The Invisible Hand is forcing a correction -- the Free Market is winning at your expense.

Communist property theory could work, under certain conditions.

Public utilities are communistic. Who owns them? The people. Granted ownership is limited to a select group of people, namely to those people served by the utilities, but that does not contradict Communist theory.

How'd that work out for everyone?

Well, in the case of electricity, the people violated the Laws of Economics, because the people did not want to pay Market rates for electricity. The situation now is that your electrical grid is antiquated and obsolete. You main stations, sub-stations and switching stations contain a mix of technology from the 1920s to the first decade of the 21st Century --- obviously in some parts of the US like the Southwest where growth did not really take place until the 1970s the technology in those systems is a mix of 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000 technology, but it needs to be upgraded/replaced nonetheless.

So you thought you would save $0.03/kilowatt-hour. Did you?

It is estimated to cost $3.5 TRILLION to fix your electrical grid.

You don't have the money now, and you never will.

You must remove all of the technology from the 1920s to the 1990s and replace it with modern technology, and you must replace the thousands of miles of high-tension power lines, and you must replace all of those transformers -- the big cylinder thingies -- you see sitting atop telephone poles, and you have to replace all of the thousands and thousands of miles of wiring right up to every home and business in the US -- but you do not have to rewire any homes or businesses.

By the way, it takes about 6-8 months to make one of those transformers.

Until you spend the money to upgrade your electrical grid, you will continue to experience minor blackouts and brown-outs. They will become more frequent. And with each passing year, it costs more to fix.

So in the end who wins?

The Free Market.

Hopefully people and government will learn a valuable lesson (but I doubt it).

Economically...

Mircea

[Kenneth-Kaunda]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

That is not greed. That is simply consumption. To you that is excessive. To others it is enjoying life (or their pursuit of happiness). For some reason you think it is reasonable for a government to choose that for people.

too much consumption is greed though, as it merely becomes consumption for the sake of consumption and status.

Someone must work long hours at low pay, to create the 5 phones for the young rich boy, who will only discard 4 of them when he becomes bored of his toys.

This is unproductive work, and creates a subservient class, and the next generation of idle aristocrats.