What am I?

[blueeyedboy]

Hi everyone, this thread needs to go in here because I'm not sure if I have an opposing ideology. First of all, I don't beleive the revolution will happen anymore, but I am against capitalism in most forms, especially globalisation. I share Marxist perspectives on some things such as education and thier views on the state, though other state theories I equally agree with. I've renounced my beliefs on there been a revolution anytime soon or in the future because it just won't happen. The problem I have though is the maintenence of society after the revolution, which I don't think could be maintained, so its better off if there isn't a revolution at all. Some capitalism is good, and the leftists on here should agree with me that capitalism has provided the things needed to start a revolution and hopefully try to maintain it after. A lot of people on here say that top executives in corporations don't actually owrk. Surely they've worked to get to that position. They don't just stroll into their superiors office and ask for a promotion. They have to earn it surely. I don't want a revolution because it just wont happen, but there needs to be more state intervention into the economy to redistribute wealth. I think I advocate some of the things t wolves fan agrees with.

[RedAnarchist]

I dunno - Social Democrat?

[blueeyedboy]

That's what I thought I was nearest too. Is being a social democrat a bad thing.

[Rollo]

Hi everyone, this thread needs to go in here because I'm not sure if I have an opposing ideology. First of all, I don't beleive the revolution will happen anymore, but I am against capitalism in most forms, especially globalisation. I share Marxist perspectives on some things such as education and thier views on the state, though other state theories I equally agree with. I've renounced my beliefs on there been a revolution anytime soon or in the future because it just won't happen. The problem I have though is the maintenence of society after the revolution, which I don't think could be maintained, so its better off if there isn't a revolution at all. Some capitalism is good, and the leftists on here should agree with me that capitalism has provided the things needed to start a revolution and hopefully try to maintain it after. A lot of people on here say that top executives in corporations don't actually owrk. Surely they've worked to get to that position. They don't just stroll into their superiors office and ask for a promotion. They have to earn it surely. I don't want a revolution because it just wont happen, but there needs to be more state intervention into the economy to redistribute wealth. I think I advocate some of the things t wolves fan agrees with.


Definetely Social Democrat.

Yes, you are an opposing ideology because you are not revolutionary.

Have fun in OI.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 01:04 pm
but there needs to be more state intervention into the economy to redistribute wealth. I think I advocate some of the things t wolves fan agrees with.
Why thank you, but I do not specifically believe that wealth needs to be redistributed. I think government can play a role in helping the less fortunate, but that help has to be focused on helping them help themselves. It should not be in the form of writing checks to people simply for being alive.

In the U.S., you'd be a left-wing Democrat.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by patton+December 20, 2006 01:21 am--> (patton @ December 20, 2006 01:21 am)
[email protected] 19, 2006 01:16 pm
That's what I thought I was nearest too. Is being a social democrat a bad thing.
Not at all thats what i consider myself. [/b]
I thought you were an illiterate conservative? Adleast I got the first part right.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by patton+December 19, 2006 04:40 pm--> (patton @ December 19, 2006 04:40 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 04:29 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 01:21 am

[email protected] 19, 2006 01:16 pm
That's what I thought I was nearest too. Is being a social democrat a bad thing.
Not at all thats what i consider myself.
I thought you were an illiterate conservative? Adleast I got the first part right.
I am an American democrate and i wish they were more like social democrates of Europe.

Do you have me confused with a right wing troll by the name of general patton like that guy zero did? [/b]
Just thought I'd add my own, valuable opinion here and say LOLZ GENERAL PATTON :lol: !
The social democrats always sell the people out - the bidding doesn't weven need to be that high :(

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 01:16 pm
That's what I thought I was nearest too. Is being a social democrat a bad thing.
That depends who you ask, obviously. From the point of view of most people here: not great but it could be worse.

[TG0]

Why do you feel the need to label your political beliefs?

[RedCeltic]

I don't beleive the revolution will happen anymore,
This is a bit of a vague statement here. You don’t believe what revolution will happen anymore? In what Nation? What form of revolution? Political revolutions take on many forms. There are currently armed revolutions taking place in distant places in the world as I type this… so an armed revolution is actually a reality for those people.. however would be unnecessary in places such as the United States or the United kingdom, France, Germany etc…. all which have some form of democracy in place. (as weak and corrupt as some of them may be.) But as I said, revolution takes many forms and for those nations a democratic revolution, or a worker’s solidarity movement (such as the IWW etc) is more realistic. Building such a movement takes much time and dedication, and doesn’t occur overnight.



but I am against capitalism in most forms, especially globalisation.

Well, all that really is needed is some class consciousness to realize the dire effects of globalization. There are some politicians among the Democrats in the US who are anti-globalization, yet they are few. Many like Bill Clinton are in great support of it and are conducting class warfare while duping the public into believing they have the best interests of the middle class in mind.



I share Marxist perspectives on some things such as education and their views on the state, though other state theories I equally agree with. I've renounced my beliefs on there been a revolution anytime soon or in the future because it just won't happen.

You know, there are some things that are just worth fighting for. When you believe in something strongly enough, it is far better to be the only voice crying into the darkness than to join the mindless flock for fear of being alone. Do you know what the oldest third party is in the United States? The Prohibition party! Few people you would meet today actually believe in anything they stand for. Yet they still exist and are still fighting for prohibition. While I totally disagree with them, I do respect them for standing up for an unpopular position.


The problem I have though is the maintenence of society after the revolution, which I don't think could be maintained, so its better off if there isn't a revolution at all.

Workers have been maintaining societies for thousands of years, how would this change? “It is we who ploughed the prairies, built the cities where they trade, Dug the mines and built the workshops, endless miles of railroad laid” (Solidarity Forever) After the revolution all that will have changed is that we will have gotten rid of the dead weight of the bosses in the capitalist class who reap the profits from those of us who actually have built this society.



Some capitalism is good, and the leftists on here should agree with me that capitalism has provided the things needed to start a revolution and hopefully try to maintain it after.

Without industrialization and capitalism, socialism is basically feudalism. When the Soviet Union was just a fledgling nation, they hired contractors from the United States and Europe to come and help build an industrial infrastructure. Such a thing did not exist in Tsarist Russia, and Marx never envisioned for a pre-industrial nation such as Russia to become the first “worker’s state.” Nor did he envision it as something that would occur overnight. Rather that capitalism would eventually crumble, and an organized working class will seize the means of production.



A lot of people on here say that top executives in corporations don't actually owrk. Surely they've worked to get to that position. They don't just stroll into their superiors office and ask for a promotion. They have to earn it surely.

What is the use of a CEO who makes a six figure income? Or stockholders? Or administrators? Sure maybe some do serve a function, yet nothing that an elected body from the shop floor couldn’t perform. In most industries there is a necessity for leadership. Yet there is no accountability to the workforce. When a worker does not perform their jobs adequately or steals from the company, they are fired. Yet a CEO can run a company into the ground, and often have a profit motive for it. And look how well the executives at Enron and WorldCom performed their jobs.


I don't want a revolution because it just wont happen

I wonder how many people toiling on cotton plantations said, “you might as well get used to being a slave, because abolition is just a pipe dream.”

[gilhyle]

Is being a social democrat a bad thing ?.....hmmmm....Personally, I'd prefer to be a Republican.

So you want to 'help people'....just like Tony Blair helped the people of Iraq

So you want to do what is possible....what is possible is defined by struggle not by asking/begging; by confining people to what the State permits instead of what they can fight for you actually hide what is possible.

At least, George Bush knows which side he's on.... social democrats live a lie and live off lies....and thats a bad thing.

Best of luck with it (that was a lie).

[blueeyedboy]

Ok then I'm a bit of everything.

[blueeyedboy]

I disagree with RedCeltic's belief that anyone can do a CEO's job. That to me is simply not possible. I thought CEO's are cunning and ruthless, machiaevellian if you will. Forgive the spelling. Not every person is ruthless and cunning and can do a job the CEO does. They must serve some function or else why have CEO's in the first place. I beleive that to be a CEO, you do need some form of talent which not everyone can posses or else wouldn't we all have highly paid jobs.

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 02:49 pm
I disagree with RedCeltic's belief that anyone can do a CEO's job. That to me is simply not possible.
Please show me where I said that anyone can do a CEO's job.

[TG0]

What is the use of a CEO who makes a six figure income?

to effectively run the corporation so that work done by the workers will not go to waste.


Or stockholders?

to provide funds so that a company can expand, which increases wages for the workers and lowers the cost of production, which is then passed on to the consumer.


Or administrators?

to make sure that everything is running smoothly so that money and other resources do not go to waste.


Sure maybe some do serve a function, yet nothing that an elected body from the shop floor couldn’t perform.

what do you think the average worker knows about running a company? do you understand that democracy in the workplace would lead to inefficiency in the same way that it does for government? it is acceptable in government because people living in a nation only have one government to listen to, but it is unacceptable in corporations because there are very, very many to choose from and can therefore leave the corporation if they disagree with their leaders.


Yet there is no accountability to the workforce.

No? what happens when a worker decides that he doesn't want to work in a corporation any more due to poor working conditions or poor hours or poor benefits or what have you? he quits the job, forcing the company to spend money getting and training another worker. companies want to retain their employees. and what happens when many workers quit a corporation? the company is forced to spend a great deal of money replacing them, and it probably becomes known the company treats its workers poorly, which biases the market against them and essentially ruins them.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 07:45 pm
Ok then I'm a bit of everything.
Blueeyed, you need waders to stay above the BS on this site. This is especially true when it comes to the commie kids' understanding of capitalism and the role of management. They would like you to believe that management sits around playing golf in their offices all day and that they were handed their positions straight out of business school.

This isn't the case. Labor is divided for a reason: people are good at specific tasks. A machine operator for instance is not going to be terribly good at determining which packaging to use or which market to go into or how to figure out the year's depreciation of capital. That is why you need management, to divide these tasks and make decisions based on what the specialists tell them (a communist will tell you that these decisions should be made by consensus of the workers, which is sloppier, more time consuming and more political than a straight decision made by an Executive).

Remember these things when a communist, who probably has a menial job, tells you how everything works.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 06:59 pm
So you want to 'help people'....just like Tony Blair helped the people of Iraq
Tony Blair is about as much a Social Democrat as Adolf Hitler was a Libertarian.

[RedCeltic]

to effectively run the corporation so that work done by the workers will not go to waste.

While there is no need for an individual with a six figure income, there may be times where specific tasks are delegated by the worker’s council to someone who specializes in specific areas. Bakunin explains it as such;
"Is not administrative work just as necessary to production as is manual labour -- if not more so? Of course, production would be badly crippled, if not altogether suspended, without efficient and intelligent management. But from the standpoint of elementary justice and even efficiency, the management of production need not be exclusively monopolised by one or several individuals. And managers are not at all entitled to more pay. The co-operative workers associations have demonstrated that the workers themselves, choosing administrators from their own ranks, receiving the same pay, can efficiency control and operate industry. The monopoly of administration, far from promoting the efficiency of production, on the contrary only enhances the power and privileges of the owners and their managers."

Bakunin also addressed the idea of the “Specialist” in this quote;

"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. . . If I bow before the authority of specialists and avow a readiness to follow, to a certain extent and as long as may seem to me necessary, their indications and even their directions, it is because their authority is imposed upon me by no one, neither men nor by God . . . I bow before the authority of special men [and women] because it is imposed upon me by my own reason." [Bakunin, God and the State, pp. 32-3]

Therefore, just as the worker’s council is able to delegate administrative tasks to those with such skills, they are also able to take the advice of specialists in other areas. They may take the advice of an engineer for the construction of a new plant, or a specialist in respects to the manufacturing of a new product, yet ultimately it is the decision of the worker’s council as to which way they will go in the endeavor.






[b]to provide funds so that a company can expand, which increases wages for the workers and lowers the cost of production, which is then passed on to the consumer.

That statement is only true under a capitalist society. In a syndicalism society (which is what I’m talking about) Industrial Syndicates will be linked to a larger industrial federation which will provide mutual securities, credit, insurance, universal employment, etc. Sometimes this is described as a “credit syndicate” or a mutual bank. As for wages, they don’t exist because the workers share in the profits and losses of their industrial syndicate.

[TG0]

Ugh..you're seriously a fucking idiot.

You do realize that it's 100% possible for a company to be run that way under a capitalist system, yes? There's absolutely no law or regulation stopping a company from running itself like that. Do you know why there aren't any major companies run that like? I'll give you a hint: it's got nothing to do with the fact that it's not "the norm".

[RedCeltic]

Ugh..you're seriously a fucking idiot.

Was that entirely necessary?


You do realize that it's 100% possible for a company to be run that way under a capitalist system, yes?

The IWW has a number of small businesses that are organized in this manner, listed as a LLC.

The most noted success (and ultimate failure) was during the Spanish civil war which ultimately was crushed by the fascist forces of Franco. There are a number of these "co-ops" still in Spain, and Argentina.

Syndicalists see the front lines of the battle against capitalism, not in a ballot box, nor storming capital hill with an ak47, but in the formation of industrial unions, and the creation of an alternative to capitalism.

[t_wolves_fan]

Your post on specialization was good but it fails to address the central point: there is an awfully good chance that given total control of the firm, and lacking the incentive of competition (assuming competition between firms/collectives is eliminated) when a situation arises where the workers have to make a choice between their own self interest and the interest of the consumers/the market, the workers will choose their own self interest.

Say, hypothetically, there is strong demand for high-quality boots in the local market, and the workers are given a choice between two options: one, work longer and harder to meet the demand or two, refuse to work longer and harder and go on producing the current product (either current quality, current volume, or both). Can you guarantee they'll choose the first option? No, you can't. This would be a problem when the local boot-making collective has a monopoly over boot production in the area. There is also the problem that petty office politics often makes "consensus" a time-consuming process that is difficult to achieve.

Now lots of solutions to this problem have been thrown out: boots will be imported (possible problem: the other boot-making collective has to vote to increase production), automation will improve efficiency (possible problem: automation doesn't happen overnight and workers may not approve an automation process that costs their fellow workers their job), or people will just not want boots (problem: not realistic).

In capitalism, the capitalist can identify the shortfall in the market and he can offer an incentive (money) to workers to make more boots. It's really about incentives here: you're betting that workers will choose the incentive of making customers happy over the incentive of working less/working less hard.




You do realize that it's 100% possible for a company to be run that way under a capitalist system, yes?

The IWW has a number of small businesses that are organized in this manner, listed as a LLC...

You didn't answer his question: worker-owned and operated companies and organizations are perfectly legal and acceptable in capitalism. Several exist, including major firms.

The question becomes, why not allow a choice between organizational models? If people want to start traditional bureaucratic firms run by a CEO with executive power and workers want to work for them, why prevent them from doing so?

[RebelDog]

In capitalism, the capitalist can identify the shortfall in the market and he can offer an incentive (money) to workers to make more boots. It's really about incentives here: you're betting that workers will choose the incentive of making customers happy over the incentive of working less/working less hard.


First of all you are assuming that a collectivised economy has the same output as a capitalist one, it absolutelly does not. Collectivised production can increase production dramatically, to levels impossible under the free-market model. The waste generated by the free-market is absurd. Everyday in the UK identical products meet identical products at the ports. It makes no sense to export a product and also import an identical product because the free-market allows the free movement of goods for profit. Its wasteful, inefficient and enviromentally insane but if a product from 10,000 miles away can undercut the locally produced one then its ok. This is repeated all over the world. Cutting this madness out and localising production would save huge amounts on fuel alone.

Secondly in the theatre of globalisation, where things are produced, is always changing at an alarming rate. Capitalists up-sticks in search of lower labour costs and working conditions, less taxes, less environmental controls and higher enterprise bribes. Now your average pro-capitalist is under the illusion this is somehow an efficient production of goods. All that has happened is the capitalist has increased his profits. The true cost is in the highly wasteful act of leaving one skilled workforce unemployed, closing a specialised factory, putting the local raw material suppliers out of business and of course the cost of setting all this up again in another country. Also capitalists should take note that when a employee in the UK forinstance is put out of work because he/she has been undercut by someone across the world, who is willing to produce the same goods for a fraction of the cost, this has a knock-on-effect in that the new worker has much less consuming power.

Thirdly, in a planned efficient collectivised economy virtually all the machinery of production could be utilised. The competitive/unpredictable nature of the free-market means that it struggles to use the means of production even to a fraction of 4/5 in boom times. Only really in a state of war does the figure rise by any significant amount. Collectivised production can end this anomally and use the machinery to its greatest productive capabilities.

Fourthly, in a collectivised economy we would not destroy boots if we produced too much just to preserve or increse a market price. An act which is at its most criminal when one person needs boots/food and someone else is destroying boots/food. I think capitalists cut shoes/ boots in half if they produce too much, don't they?

[George W. Bush]

First of all you are assuming that a collectivised economy has the same output as a capitalist one, it absolutelly does not.

right. a collectivised economy outputs very poor products not worth much in a capitalist economy because there's no reason to put as much effort as you could into something as long as it looks like you're trying so (in the fairy tale world) your neighbors dont complain and refuse to share what they make with you or (in the real world) the secret police dont stick you in forced labor death camps for breaking the law.


Collectivised production can increase production dramatically, to levels impossible under the free-market model.

no matter how many times you say that, it's not true.


Everyday in the UK identical products meet identical products at the ports.

they're likely not identical. remember, capitalists do what they can to eliminate wasted capital.


It makes no sense to export a product and also import an identical product because the free-market allows the free movement of goods for profit.

uh-oh..people free to do what they want? time to step in and crush their freedom!


Its wasteful, inefficient and enviromentally insane but if a product from 10,000 miles away can undercut the locally produced one then its ok. This is repeated all over the world. Cutting this madness out and localising production would save huge amounts on fuel alone.

youve given no evidence that it actually happens


Capitalists up-sticks in search of lower labour costs and working conditions, less taxes, less environmental controls and higher enterprise bribes. Now your average pro-capitalist is under the illusion this is somehow an efficient production of goods. All that has happened is the capitalist has increased his profits.

the capitalist has increased profit and the consumer gets his product for less.


planned efficient collectivised economy

warning: oxymoron


Fourthly, in a collectivised economy we would not destroy boots if we produced too much just to preserve or increse a market price.

how would you know that you produced too many? you wouldn't receive any feedback from the market. no person or group of people know how many boots a population will need. you'll just end up some days with too many boots in stores and the next day there will be too few.


I think capitalists cut shoes/ boots in half if they produce too much, don't they?

not likely. they probably turn them back into raw materials and turn them into different shoes that are in higher demand.

[t_wolves_fan]

First of all you are assuming that a collectivised economy has the same output as a capitalist one, it absolutelly does not. Collectivised production can increase production dramatically, to levels impossible under the free-market model.

Only by settling for a standard, low quality product because if you produce lots of high quality products, you need more resources than you have.

Ask yourself why Canada has fewer MRI machines than the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area in the United States.


The waste generated by the free-market is absurd. Everyday in the UK identical products meet identical products at the ports.

They're not identical. They're not even close.


Its wasteful, inefficient and enviromentally insane but if a product from 10,000 miles away can undercut the locally produced one then its ok. This is repeated all over the world. Cutting this madness out and localising production would save huge amounts on fuel alone.

You don't know anything about free trade at all do you.

In capitalism, it only makes sense to ship a product in from far away if it cannot be produced less expensively in the local market. That means when a car is shipped in from Japan, the fuel used to transport the car is offset by the more efficient and higher-quality production used by the Japanese. The shipping may take up fuel, but the production probably uses less fuel and less steel than it would in the United States.


Secondly in the theatre of globalisation, where things are produced, is always changing at an alarming rate.

It changes because the market seeks efficiencies. Doing things as they've always been done is not a virtue if someone else can do it better.


Now your average pro-capitalist is under the illusion this is somehow an efficient production of goods. All that has happened is the capitalist has increased his profits.

A capitalist cannot increase his profits if the production process is not made more efficient.


The true cost is in the highly wasteful act of leaving one skilled workforce unemployed, closing a specialised factory, putting the local raw material suppliers out of business and of course the cost of setting all this up again in another country.

A skilled workforce is not replaced until another skilled workforce can do the same job for less. That is called "efficiency". Closing a factory means it will be replaced by a more efficient factory. Local raw material suppliers will not go out of business unless there is less demand for their product. Sometimes their going out of business is a good thing, unless you demand that oil producers not be put out of business? Think about it: by your logic, you'd be upset if an oil producer were put out of business because we found a cheaper, less-polluting way to power automobiles. Is that smart?


Also capitalists should take note that when a employee in the UK forinstance is put out of work because he/she has been undercut by someone across the world, who is willing to produce the same goods for a fraction of the cost, this has a knock-on-effect in that the new worker has much less consuming power.

This is true. However, you ignore the fact that the now unemployed worker in the UK will eventually find employment in another sector where his labor can be used more effectively.


Thirdly, in a planned efficient collectivised economy virtually all the machinery of production could be utilised.

Sapping the world's resources in about 6 years.


The competitive/unpredictable nature of the free-market means that it struggles to use the means of production even to a fraction of 4/5 in boom times.

Keeping production at max level at all times isn't very efficient, is it? If you're producing 100 cars and demand drops to 85 are you telling me it's efficient to keep producing 100 cars anyway?



Only really in a state of war does the figure rise by any significant amount. Collectivised production can end this anomally and use the machinery to its greatest productive capabilities.

Sapping the world's resources in 6 years to over-produce product by about 100%


Fourthly, in a collectivised economy we would not destroy boots if we produced too much just to preserve or increse a market price. An act which is at its most criminal when one person needs boots/food and someone else is destroying boots/food. I think capitalists cut shoes/ boots in half if they produce too much, don't they?

Yes, at which point more people can afford them and more people buy them.

The problem is that people may not want the boots that are overproduced.

Centralized economic planning (http://www.ceu.hu/envsci/aleg/research/EnvDegradationEastEurope090903.pdf) is very hard on the environment. Why? Because to give people enough of what they want, which they have to do to keep popular support, the government has to maximize production at all costs.

"The industrialization of the Soviet Union was led by the highly centralized state bureaucracy and reflected the interests of this bureaucracy in the first place with little regard to local concerns. For example, during the 1960s assessment of the ambitiousplans to develop giant irrigation schemes in Central Asia in order to facilitate cottonproduction, it was noted that the Aral Sea would, most likely, dry up. This enormousinland water body provided fish and other means of subsistence to large coastal communities. However, on the national scale, cotton was deemed more important than fish (which could be obtained elsewhere). Following this logic, it was decided to proceed with the irrigation plans, compensating the local communities throughshipping fish from the Artic and the Far East for processing there. The result was one of the largest man-made environmental disasters of the 20thcentury, inflicting tremendous suffering on former coastal inhabitants."

"The government tended to consider the environment as yet another sector and manageit through specialized authorities (e.g. the Committee for Water Works, the Main Hunting Authority, the Ministry of Fisheries, the Committee for Meteorology (also responsible for air and water quality) etc3.). However, even though such agenciescould achieve certain results within their “sectors” (e.g. ensure protection of game orfish from poaching) they had no mandate to influence other Ministries and sectors,from where the most significant environmental impacts originated.

The problem was exacerbated by the lack of checks and balances in the centralgovernment, where the Central Committee of the Communist Party wassimultaneously responsible for all functions of the society: industrial production,housing, health care, defense, education, the environment, etc. Whenever any conflictbetween the environment and development emerged, the non-transparent informalpolicy process would almost always result in economic interests prevailing, except for such plainly catastrophic situations as the Chernobyl disaster. The lack of democracy and participatory decision-making procedures, disregard to public opinion and reliance on Moscow-based experts in evaluating problems added to the anti-environmental bias of most economic decisions. Another environmentally important institutional factor was that innovation andmodernization of production facilities was becoming progressively difficult in the Soviet centrally planned economy. It was easier for the state to operate large “stable”enterprises with constant levels of input and output. For example, in the Urals several factories were working with the equipment they received as reparations from Germany after the WWII until the mid-1990s. Thus, introduction of any progressive environmentally clean technologies or management practices was extremely rare in the USSR."

Never underestimate the laziness of a bureaucrat when it comes to making changes in a public organization, because it's very hard to make important changes that affect people's jobs.

What this all means, sport, is that when the economy is centrally planned, you have bureaucrats working in stovepipes who are interested primarily meeting quotas (otherwise they get fired). If nothing costs anything, and output is the primary goal, use of resources becomes a secondary concern.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 06:33 pm

What this all means, sport, is that when the economy is centrally planned, you have bureaucrats working in stovepipes who are interested primarily meeting quotas (otherwise they get fired). If nothing costs anything, and output is the primary goal, use of resources becomes a secondary concern.
You seem very quick to say what was wrong with an actual planned economy while ignoring what an ideal planned economy would do - while at the same time being very quick to say what an ideal capitalist market would do - while ignoring how the actual capitalist market works.

Key points that you slip quickly past are the extent to which globalization is actually structured to facilitate tax avoidance, financial market speculation and and inter-imperialist rivalry, rather than overall economic efficiency.

Of course a globally specialised economy would be a good thing - but what is happening is a needlessly painful and destructive route towards that goal.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 07:03 pm
You seem very quick to say what was wrong with an actual planned economy while ignoring what an ideal planned economy would do

That's because I prefer to deal in reality than in high-minded but impractical ideals.

You: "Here's how it would work."

Me: "Here's how it works when actually implemented."

You: "Yeah but it would actually work this way..."

Me: "That's all well and good, but when you actually do it, this is what happens."

You: "It's not fair to talk about what actually happens!"

Me: "Um, ok."


- while at the same time being very quick to say what an ideal capitalist market would do - while ignoring how the actual capitalist market works.

No I don't. Tax avoidance and lower wages are part of economic efficiency. I addressed these specifically. If it costs $40 build something here and $20 to build it there, you build it there. Then you either pocket the $20 savings and spend it elsewhere or you use it to expand production, meaning more jobs.

Now I understand your point: unfettered globalization and a race to the bottom is a problem. But these problems can be dealt with through regulation. Your system on the other hand would fail, completely. You also seem to assume that all job outsourcing and all international trade is a result of this race to the bottom. It isn't.

[RebelDog]

Only by settling for a standard, low quality product because if you produce lots of high quality products, you need more resources than you have.

You have taken capitalist production and assumed that collectivised production is merely more quantity, less quality and the same tonnage output. Production driven by a free market is an inefficient system in its waste, duplication, competition and failure to produce to capacity. Collectivisation can by definition produce the same quality of product in higher amounts than capitalism.


Ask yourself why Canada has fewer MRI machines than the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area in the United States.


I have no idea about that perticular case but Canada is a country awash with resources. They are not being used for MRI scanners clearly and that is a failure of its bourgeois democracy, but one expects that. Is the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area a place where wealth is used socially and such things as MRI machines have a priority? A collectivised economy could produce more MRI machines where the free-market has clearly failed.


They're not identical. They're not even close.

Semantics. Every year the UK exports about 250,000 tonnes of pork to Europe and imports about 250,000 tonnes of pork. This happens with all kinds of products all over the world. Every country in the world does this to varying degrees. Every day identical products meet each other at ports when they could have stayed where they are and satisfied the need there. A company in the UK has just announced it will close its prawn processing plant and will ship scottish caught prawns to the far-east to be deshelled by virtual slaves and then shipped back for the UK market. This is why those who are pro-free-market (Tony Blair forinstance) have no right to preach to anyone about global warming and at the same time defend the right of capitalists to embark on this madness.


You don't know anything about free trade at all do you.

In capitalism, it only makes sense to ship a product in from far away if it cannot be produced less expensively in the local market. That means when a car is shipped in from Japan, the fuel used to transport the car is offset by the more efficient and higher-quality production used by the Japanese. The shipping may take up fuel, but the production probably uses less fuel and less steel than it would in the United States.

Again you are getting efficiency mixed up with profits when I talk of efficiency I mean in energy expelled to produce a given product. It is not only fuel that is the issue, what about the ships used to move all these cars? The logistics, loading-unloading etc. This makes the product cost more in terms of resources. Another huge inefficient part of the free-market that swallows resources is advertising, insurance etc.


It changes because the market seeks efficiencies. Doing things as they've always been done is not a virtue if someone else can do it better.

It changes because the capitalist seeks increased profits. Its not me that is barring progress, I agree we should change things and do them better. Collective ownership, production and distribution could do it much, much better.


A capitalist cannot increase his profits if the production process is not made more efficient.

Clearly not, but that does not mean the capitalist mode of production is an efficient one compared to the collective. Also, the individual capitalist increases his/her efficiency locally but in general terms the efficiency is not as much as it would seem as the increased competition means his competitors may go out of business and leave another factory not producing at all or underproducing.


A skilled workforce is not replaced until another skilled workforce can do the same job for less. That is called "efficiency".

It is called increasing profits from labour. The bigger picture sees a skilled workforce, an already producing factory and a local infrastructure wasted because workers in the far-east or elsewhere are being payed slave wages. Its about as efficient as burning the factory with the workforce in it.


Sometimes their going out of business is a good thing, unless you demand that oil producers not be put out of business? Think about it: by your logic, you'd be upset if an oil producer were put out of business because we found a cheaper, less-polluting way to power automobiles. Is that smart?

You know fine I'm not here to protect oil producers. I am here however to critisise the inefficient free-market mode of production and distribution. I'm all for the alternative energy production as looking through these forums will confirm. Workers in the oil industry could easily be gradually moved in to alternative sectors of energy production and its actually slowly happening now. We could have been utilising renewable energy years ago but the profit motive is all that counts not what is best.


This is true. However, you ignore the fact that the now unemployed worker in the UK will eventually find employment in another sector where his labor can be used more effectively.

The employee can find other work but the bigger picture tells us that global production will stagnate or slightly increase while the consumption of goods will decrease. The tendency of the rate of profit to fall is a slow but certain one, competition can take us nowhere else. Capitalists rely on other capitalists to pay workers wages that means the consume the formers products, while their own interests lie in paying low wages. Its unsustainable and its a runaway train that has no brakes.


Sapping the world's resources in about 6 years.

Rather hypocritical for a pro-capitalist owing to the crisis the free-market has dragged the human race in to presently. Capitalism is unsustainable and globalisation means it has lost any hope of being self regulated or co-operative solutions to major problems. Do you see capitalism adapting past globalisation? Where can it go?


Keeping production at max level at all times isn't very efficient, is it? If you're producing 100 cars and demand drops to 85 are you telling me it's efficient to keep producing 100 cars anyway?


A planned economy can do away with the vagaries of the market and produce for need. Control of all the productive forces will mean its far easier to forecast demand and meet it. If a capitalist overproduces cars he/she is in trouble. A planned economy can meet demand head on and re-tool factories with greater efficiency. Also technology and information will be collectivised so the planning power and ability to adapt is superior to the market.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 07:09 pm
Tax avoidance and lower wages are part of economic efficiency. I addressed these specifically. If it costs $40 build something here and $20 to build it there, you build it there. Then you either pocket the $20 savings and spend it elsewhere or you use it to expand production, meaning more jobs.

Now I understand your point: unfettered globalization and a race to the bottom is a problem. But these problems can be dealt with through regulation. Your system on the other hand would fail, completely. You also seem to assume that all job outsourcing and all international trade is a result of this race to the bottom. It isn't.
No, you still miss my point. I hve no problem with the idea that moving production to the place where it will benefit from the cheapest (appropriate) labor increases efficiency. But structuring production to achieve tax avoidance does not achieve that result, nor does structuring trade agreements to facilitate the free movement of capital, but not labor and nor does providing for free trade in those products where the imperialist powers enjoy a trade advantage while retaining protectionism where they would loose. Nor does the abuse of intellectual property rights law which is only justified where necessary to promote research. Nor do off-shore financial centres.

You say you deal in reality, deal in the reality of globalization as it is actually happening, rather than just regurgitating the basic perfect capitalist, market clearing model.

[Guerrilla22]

What am I?

Reactionary.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 07:09 pm
That's because I prefer to deal in reality than in high-minded but impractical ideals.
Except when it comes to the economic system you prefer, in which case you prefer to avoid reality and talk about the high minded ideals behind capitalism. It is a double standard to compare actual command economies to an idealized market capitalist economy. For the comparison to be valid you need to either compare actual command to actual market capitalist or ideal command to ideal market capitalist. You're comparing apples and oranges. Obviously when you compare the actual version of any system to the ideal version of a different system the ideal version is going to come out on top, regardless of the systems you choose.