Socialists and the credit crunch. Far left policies are... what?

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.politics.ie/current-affairs/37428-socialists-credit-crunch-far-left-policies-what.html



Since the admins of the board above have yet to approve my registration, I decide to give some thought to the material in that thread. A lot of the misperceptions of the far left are, unfortunately, due to the programmatic posturing (or rather lack thereof) by the far-left groups being observed by the "average Joe":


What immediate-term policies, if any, are the various Trotskyite and Communist parties offering as practical proposals to handle the aftermath of this problem?

I´m not talking about any notions they may have of total revolutionary change, abolishing private property blah blah blah.

Basically, I´m asking this: has any left-wing party anywhere in Europe (such as Joe Higgins´ type) offered any kind of short-term practical responses to the economic difficulties?

Lenin was prepared to implement partially-capitalist programmes in Russia upon taking power, acknowledging Marx´s position that many aspects of capitalism are good. So it would be silly to pretend that no true Socialist would ever propose to operate capitalism.

I´ve been looking, and apart from vague, stupidly non-specific ideas like "abolish the profit system" I see nothing suggesting what socialists would actually do if they got into power.

Can anyone point me to a far-left movement´s website which gives specific policy proposals which are achievable and do not involve massive constitutuional change.

I mean Socialist proposals limited to taxation and subsidy, etc, not sweeping eliminations of the status quo without any proven-workable plan to replace them.



Of course, the poster's last comments demonstrated a false dichotomy between "taxation and subsidies" on the one hand and "abolish private property, revolution, etc." on the other. And since the poster exhibits an economistic tendency, I'll only discuss economic demands or the economic aspects of more comprehensive demands.

I'll repost what I'll say below on that board, but I'm hoping for some discussion here, too.

1) Shorten the work week to 32 hours or less without loss of pay or benefits.

2) Direct proposals and rejections (a la referenda), at the national level, regarding all tax rates on all types of income (including capital gains and dividends).

3) Abolish all indirect taxation (sales taxes, for example).

4) "Sliding scale of wages" and "living wage": First, lots of companies offer cost-of-living adjustments to their employees, so why can't this be universalized for all employment compensation and benefits? Second, minimum wages (like those for Wal-Mart and McDonald's workers) should be bumped up to "living wage" levels. Third, unemployment benefits should be at "living wage" levels, too.

5) Bailout $$$ should be directed towards the formation of worker cooperatives, and more corporate and upper-class "taxpayer" money should head in this direction in the face of workplace closures, mass sackings, and mass layoffs.

[If workers for some reason or another do want to be "laid off," however, the bailout $$$ should be directed towards securing their pension plans. I believe the economist Stiglitz suggested this recently.]

6) Really nationalize the banks and ban all derivatives trading (done during the Great Depression, I believe), instead of this de facto lending without oversight (much less more democratic control):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081203.wcopanitch04/BNStory/specialComment/home

7) Establish a fully nationalized "public works" program (although in reality "public works" should be expanded to broken neighbourhoods, alternative energy facilities construction, urban farming, etc.), instead of mere contracting out to the money-grubbing private sector.

[BobKKKindle$]

The SWP has actually issued a set of demands/policies in response to the crisis, specifically focusing on what can be done to halt job losses and restore full employment:


Three steps to save jobs

Nationalise to stop closures | 35 hour week with no pay cut | Build council houses

The threat of redundancy is hanging over the head of millions of workers as the economic slump deepens. Every day seems to bring new announcements of huge job losses at factories, shops and offices around the country.
Gordon Brown and New Labour throw their hands up in dismay at the news – but say there is nothing they can do to stop people being thrown out of work.
They are resigned to an ever increasing number of people being made unemployed, further depressing an economy that is already sinking into recession.
But there are immediate steps that we could take to halt the bonfire of jobs.


Companies planning to axe jobs or cut working hours should be taken into public hands and run in the interest of the workers and wider society. This could save hundreds of thousands of jobs. It is testament to the madness of capitalism that whenever the system plunges into crisis, millions are thrown out of their work and their vital skills are wasted.
Just because bosses and banks can’t make enough profits from Woolworths doesn’t mean that people don’t need children’s clothes and household essentials.
Car workers being laid off at Jaguar, Ford and Aston Martin have skills that could be used to create the next generation of public transport vehicles.
Manufacturing workers could be retrained and factories retooled to produce the wind turbines and other green energy sources we need to tackle climate change.
British workers in full-time employment work an average of 39.5 hours a week. If this was reduced to a 35-hour week with no loss of pay, it would cut the working week by 4.5 hours and create 2.3 million new jobs. There are also five million workers working an average of seven hours unpaid overtime every week, according to TUC figures. If those hours became paid work done by other people, it would create a further one million jobs.
The economic crisis has led to thousands of construction workers being sacked. We could employ them to build a new generation of council housing. This wouldn’t just create jobs – it would provide decent, affordable homes for hundreds of thousands of ordinary people currently living in expensive, overcrowded and substandard accommodation.

These three simple steps are just the first that could be taken to save millions of people’s livelihoods.
They would also help shore up workers’ living standards and prevent the slump from spreading even further.
But workers cannot simply beg the government to implement these measures. These policies all break radically with the free market dogma that New Labour has followed throughout its existence.
It will take a massive struggle by ordinary people to ensure that it is the bosses and their system that are swept away by the economic hurricane – rather than our own livelihoods.



http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=16640

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have mixed feelings about the SWP's "three steps." On the surface, #1 (nationalization of threatened workplaces) seems to be more radical than my #5 (cooperativism), but given my recent readings, I just don't know. #2 and #3, unfortunately, pale in comparison to my #1 and #7, respectively. Even in advocating reforms, we're supposed to be beyond "social-democrats" (be they liberals or even those for the old "post-war consensus," and perhaps even beyond the reforms of the "Scandinavian socialists"). :(

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

First, allow me to say that I think the man brings up some very good questions.

The time is calling for a Populist Knight to rise up, and if Obama fails the cry will be all the greater.

Anyway,



1) Shorten the work week to 32 hours or less without loss of pay or benefits.

Hell yeah. It's about fucking time wages caught up with inflation.



2) Direct proposals and rejections (a la referenda), at the national level, regarding all tax rates on all types of income (including capital gains and dividends).Eh I dunno. Trusting the people to raise taxes on themselves....of course, if a socialist party became relevant than it would have to be accompanied with education as to how the average Joe is getting fucked on his taxes.


3) Abolish all indirect taxation (sales taxes, for example).Eh I dunno. I personally don't feel that someone who uses the train, or simply doesn't drive, should have to pay the same in road costs as to someone who drives a lot. Therefore, I don't have huge complaints about the government taxing gasoline in order to pay for those costs (at least, in theory).


4) "Sliding scale of wages" and "living wage": First, lots of companies offer cost-of-living adjustments to their employees, so why can't this be universalized for all employment compensation and benefits?To a certain extent because those COLAs can become a millstone around a laborers neck if the company isn't penalized for off-shoring (let alone encouraged, as has been the case in the US).



Second, minimum wages (like those for Wal-Mart and McDonald's workers) should be bumped up to "living wage" levels.No disagreement.


Third, unemployment benefits should be at "living wage" levels, too.Eh, I dunno. Paying an able-bodied someone who's not working literally the same as a full-time worker? I agree that unemployment should be brought up, but I think the money would be better spent creating jobs and giving loans to allow people to go to colleges and vocational schools.


[If workers for some reason or another do want to be "laid off," however, the bailout $$$ should be directed towards securing their pension plans. I believe the economist Stiglitz suggested this recently.]In the case of auto workers alone, this would be hundreds of billions. Personally, I'm hoping we get a system in which those companies still have to honor the contracts they've made, while we increase social security and medicare funding across the board (of course, with the baby boomers getting old that's going to be an understatement).


6) Really nationalize the banks and ban all derivatives trading (done during the Great Depression, I believe), instead of this de facto lending without oversight (much less more democratic control):Hell yes. We all got fucked on the first half of the bailout.

No more of this bullshit allowing banks to scare the government enough to give them money and do what? buy other banks?

Never again.



7) Establish a fully nationalized "public works" program (although in reality "public works" should be expanded to broken neighbourhoods, alternative energy facilities construction, urban farming, etc.), instead of mere contracting out to the money-grubbing private sector.Word on the street is Obama may be aiming at $500-$700 billion in infrastructure projects, and if we have a horrible beyond horrible downturn in the shopping season, that could hit $1trillion. And that, I must admit, is a start.

Also, what do you mean by "urban farming?"

Anyway, this isn't too far from what I think could be a good basis for a socialist alternative. Bu who knows what the future holds, this could look quite conservative in a few years or so. All we need now is the benjamins :D

[Die Neue Zeit]

First, allow me to say that I think the man brings up some very good questions.

The time is calling for a Populist Knight to rise up, and if Obama fails the cry will be all the greater.

Obama WILL fail on that front, but that really depends on how one interprets the word "populism." On the one hand, it means pandering down to the lowest common denominator (self-proclaimed "revolutionaries" shouting ultra-liberal slogans, or governments resorting to mere "tax the rich" schemes, as if unrest for further change will come out of that :rolleyes: ).

On the other hand, there's Chavez and "Scandinavian socialism." The jury's still out on, say, Die Linke's program.


Hell yeah. It's about fucking time wages caught up with inflation.

The main demand there is the shorter workweek. The non-loss of pay and benefits is a side demand. If "capitalism is soooo swell," why the hell are workers working longer hours? The 32-hour workweek should've been reached in the 60s!


Eh I dunno. Trusting the people to raise taxes on themselves....of course, if a socialist party became relevant than it would have to be accompanied with education as to how the average Joe is getting fucked on his taxes.

Actually, this direct democracy in income taxation also means giving "the people" the ability to establish new tax brackets. This means empowering "the people" to impose higher taxes on "the elite."

You didn't comment on the worker cooperative stuff, BTW.


To a certain extent because those COLAs can become a millstone around a laborers neck if the company isn't penalized for off-shoring (let alone encouraged, as has been the case in the US).

I've read minimum programs of various communist organizations, and I must apologize for not mentioning the offshoring stuff. However, the offshoring reeks of protectionism, and goes against my *personal* belief in subsidized trade favouring the developing world. If labour protectionism is to be enacted (as opposed to First World farm subsidies crippling Third World farmers :rolleyes: ), then the governments of the developed world will have to *invest* in equalizing the playing field (i.e., no "free market" clauses for international government banking loans a la the World Bank and IMF).


Word on the street is Obama may be aiming at $500-$700 billion in infrastructure projects, and if we have a horrible beyond horrible downturn in the shopping season, that could hit $1trillion. And that, I must admit, is a start.

Obama is relying on a horribly inefficient and insufficiently comprehensive "public works" scheme. As I said earlier, he's relying on the private sector.


Also, what do you mean by "urban farming?"

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/08/news/CB-FEA-GEN-Cuba-Farming-Havana.php


Hell yes. We all got fucked on the first half of the bailout.

No more of this bullshit allowing banks to scare the government enough to give them money and do what? buy other banks?

Never again.

The funny thing is that all the "European socialists" back during the post-WWII "consensus" NEVER treaded upon nationalizing financial services wholesale under one state-owned financial institution. :glare:

[danyboy27]

some nice idea, but none of them take in consideration the current economical situation.
since we live in capitalist society, you need something to rentabilize it, something that will generate profit in order to make those idea works, you need the money from somewhere to do this.
otherwise, you just suck out the money from the public sector, put the working class in debts.

one thing we could do to find the money for that would be to reorganize the whole military has we know it in order to cut useless expenses. We dont need that much stuff these day to make war, and most of the coming conflict will involve low intensity warfare, there is no need to posses thousand f interceptor for that.

i say, we should add new buisness regulation in order to combat monopoly and get the bad guy who fuck up the economy by doing fraud more quickly.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Obama WILL fail on that front, but that really depends on how one interprets the word "populism." On the one hand, it means pandering down to the lowest common denominator (self-proclaimed "revolutionaries" shouting ultra-liberal slogans, or governments resorting to mere "tax the rich" schemes, as if unrest for further change will come out of that :rolleyes: ).

Of course he'll fail. The question is will the people accept the failure or reject him. And if they do, the far-left needs to throw someone out there with a little bit of money and an idea. Just so he can bust 5% when Reagan comes back.



On the other hand, there's Chavez and "Scandinavian socialism." The jury's still out on, say, Die Linke's program.Eh we haven't gotten past "No, universal healthcare is not communism" in a lot of America yet.



The main demand there is the shorter workweek. The non-loss of pay and benefits is a side demand. If "capitalism is soooo swell," why the hell are workers working longer hours? The 32-hour workweek should've been reached in the 60s!It'd be nice.


Actually, this direct democracy in income taxation also means giving "the people" the ability to establish new tax brackets. This means empowering "the people" to impose higher taxes on "the elite."I know, it's just I'm not sure if the people would raise taxes on anything. I'd trust them to raise spending, but taxes?



You didn't comment on the worker cooperative stuff, BTW.I don't know enough about them.


I've read minimum programs of various communist organizations, and I must apologize for not mentioning the offshoring stuff. However, the offshoring reeks of protectionism, and goes against my *personal* belief in subsidized trade favouring the developing world. If labour protectionism is to be enacted (as opposed to First World farm subsidies crippling Third World farmers :rolleyes: ), then the governments of the developed world will have to *invest* in equalizing the playing field (i.e., no "free market" clauses for international government banking loans a la the World Bank and IMF).Along with forcing China to no longer be able to artificially lower their currency.


Obama is relying on a horribly inefficient and insufficiently comprehensive "public works" scheme. As I said earlier, he's relying on the private sector.And I take it your talking about CCC like programs?

That'd be cool.


The funny thing is that all the "European socialists" back during the post-WWII "consensus" never treaded upon nationalizing financial services wholesale under one state-owned financial institution. :glare:It's a big jump, nationalizing the individual banks.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Jacob Richter, how did you find P.ie? Are you Irish? We have a few far-left posters over there, most of them quite good and well-respected. Unfortunately there's one absolute troll who's been making a hobby of pissing people off over the last couple of months. He claims he's SP but I wouldn't be surprised if he was a right-winger trying to make lefties look like idiots. So I don't know what kind of reception you'd get there.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I found P.ie merely by web searching on the far left, the center-left, and the current financial crisis. The particular thread in question piqued my interest.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

You know, I think a lot of people would be willing to take a socialist party more seriously if they said we were sheltered from competition from Asia/Eastern Europe for so long that we got complacent. Those economies have taken many jobs, and most of them aren't ever coming back.

Once that premise is established, it's clear that the main focus must be re-education for workers into jobs which can't be offshored (infrastructure, and skilled labor) and a more robust flow of dollars to shore up domestic job market (along with other programs, of course).

The Economist has an article on why the left isn't being embraced in Europe despite the crisis, and it reflects many of the concerns average joe has.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I must say that this post is a wee bit unrelated to the credit crunch (not to mention that your suggestion is already adopted by "social-democrats"). I read BOTH the Economist article and a similar Guardian article. The "center-left" can't cash in because it had a hand in the neoliberalization of the 1990s, which at least we on the "populist," "anti-globalization" far left are successful in pointing out. [Unfortunately, more workers either stay home or go to the far-right precisely because of the stuff in the OP above.]

The 32-hour workweek and "sliding scale of wages" would be applicable regardless of job.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The 32-hour workweek and "sliding scale of wages" would be applicable regardless of job.

How would the 32-hour workweek affect salaried jobs, which are today very common in the first world?

We should offer money for innovation and college, but anti-globalization policies so we can get all the bolt-screwing jobs back?

[Die Neue Zeit]

How would the 32-hour workweek affect salaried jobs, which are today very common in the first world?

Um, the 32-hour workweek hits home precisely for salaried workers like myself, given increased tendencies towards unpaid "extra time" work (even the deferment of "extra time" payment would yield a time-value-of-money advantage to the employer). The various businesses would, of course, have to hire more salaried employees to make up for lost work and perhaps also restructure things like office functions.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Um, the 32-hour workweek hits home precisely for salaried workers like myself, given increased tendencies towards unpaid "extra time" work (even the deferment of "extra time" payment would yield a time-value-of-money advantage to the employer). The various businesses would, of course, have to hire more salaried employees to make up for lost work and perhaps also restructure things like office functions.

Or much more likely they will react by becoming more efficient.

"No more breaks. No more being late. No more 10-minute-longer-than-allowed lunches. No more chit-chat, you are working when you enter and you do so at maximum effort until you leave. Hey, how is your job different from hers?"

"Well, uh, ..."

"You're fired. Have the government pay you now."

I'm not trying to rain on your platform, I actually think it's quite good, just saying what I think'll be the response to this one issue.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Or much more likely they will react by becoming more efficient.

"No more breaks.

That's illegal, even in US labour law.


No more being late. No more 10-minute-longer-than-allowed lunches.

Like most office workers do that, anyway...


No more chit-chat, you are working when you enter and you do so at maximum effort until you leave. Hey, how is your job different from hers?"

"Well, uh, ..."

"You're fired. Have the government pay you now."

I don't thinking cost-cutting by shaving jobs would be a good operational idea for the business. If I had 32 office workers working 40 hours per week (1,280 hours per week), and then all of a sudden they all worked just 32 hours without loss of pay, I'd have to fill in 8 spots, or 256 work-hours per week. [Like you said, however, the "efficiency" comes in when the same work can be done with less than 8 spots filled. My guess would be between 4 and 6 spots, or between 128 and 192 work-hours per week, respectively.]

[RedKnight]

Here is what Michael Moore proposes. http://www.alternet.org/workplace/110051/michael_moore%3A_save_the_auto_industry_and_kick_i ts_ceos_to_the_curb/

1. Transporting Americans is and should be one of the most important functions our government must address. And because we are facing a massive economic, energy and environmental crisis, the new president and Congress must do what Franklin Roosevelt did when he was faced with a crisis (and ordered the auto industry to stop building cars and instead build tanks and planes): The Big Three are, from this point forward, to build only cars that are not primarily dependent on oil and, more importantly to build trains, buses, subways and light rail (a corresponding public-works project across the country will build the rail lines and tracks). This will not only save jobs, but create millions of new ones.
2. You could buy all the common shares of stock in General Motors for less than $3 billion. Why should we give GM $18 billion or $25 billion, or anything? Take the money and buy the company! (You're going to demand collateral anyway if you give them the "loan," and because we know they will default on that loan, you're going to own the company in the end as it is. So why wait? Just buy them out now.)
3. None of us want government officials running a car company, but there are some very smart transportation geniuses who could be hired to do this. We need a Marshall Plan to switch us off oil-dependent vehicles and get us into the 21st centur

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Here is what Michael Moore proposes.

I like his proposal a lot.

[Die Neue Zeit]

IMHO, the entire auto industry is a natural monopoly waiting to be taken into public ownership, anyway. ;)

[Iowa656]

"Second, minimum wages (like those for Wal-Mart and McDonald's workers) should be bumped up to "living wage" levels. Third, unemployment benefits should be at "living wage" levels, too"

Minimum wage should of course be increased. We all know that. However in the second part you have suggested what can only be described as a ridiculous policy. The government should help those who have lost their job, or those looking for work with benefits, that is obvious. But to suggest these benefits should be equal to this "living wage" is flawed. Unfortunately there are some people in society who do not want to help the community, who do not want to work, if unemployment benefit was raised to this "living wage" then the number with this attitude would rocket upwards. "If I go to work, I will only be earning as much as my unemployment benefits, there is no point in working when I can get the same money for doing nothing".

As Marx himself said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", that is if someone uses their ability, whatever that may be, for the greater good of the community they will get what they need. If they don't use their ability then unfortunately they will not get all that they need.

A much better policy would be to considerably increases the minimum wage and to offer help to the unemployed in the form of Adult education classes, confidence seminars, talking to social workers etc so that they feel comfortable with going to work. In this capitalist consumerist society we live in a workers income when in work will have to be considerably greater than benefits in order for there to be any incentive to continue work.

It will take generations to remove the mainstream attitude that work is just for selfish monetary gain. But when communism is applied things will, needless to say, change beyond recognition. Until then we can only further the cause.

[Bud Struggle]

A coupel of questions.


1) Shorten the work week to 32 hours or less without loss of pay or benefits. Where does the money come from to pay for the extra workers time? Employers are faced with layoffs--for them to put MORE people on with less income would be pretty difficult.


2) Direct proposals and rejections (a la referenda), at the national level, regarding all tax rates on all types of income (including capital gains and dividends). Best would be a flat tax for everyone. Everyone pays the same %.


3) Abolish all indirect taxation (sales taxes, for example). I'd be for that. The rich purchase a lot more than the poor--it's unfair. Unfortunately, this is where a lot of state income comes from. How would one make up the shortfall?


4) "Sliding scale of wages" and "living wage": First, lots of companies offer cost-of-living adjustments to their employees, so why can't this be universalized for all employment compensation and benefits? Second, minimum wages (like those for Wal-Mart and McDonald's workers) should be bumped up to "living wage" levels. Third, unemployment benefits should be at "living wage" levels, too. And with that no more $1 Value Meals! But low cost food and clothes that places life McDonalds and Wal-Mart deliver will be at an end. It's the poor that eat there and buy there--wouldn't they be hurt the most? Raise the Minimum wage to $10 an hour and make the cost of a Double Cheeseburger $5. Nothing's going to change--except for the worse.


5) Bailout $$$ should be directed towards the formation of worker cooperatives, and more corporate and upper-class "taxpayer" money should head in this direction in the face of workplace closures, mass sackings, and mass layoffs. Have anyone ever been part of a "worker's co-op"? I've been in business for 25 years and have never seen one. If such things reall worked wouldn't you think they would be all over the place?


[If workers for some reason or another do want to be "laid off," however, the bailout $$$ should be directed towards securing their pension plans. I believe the economist Stiglitz suggested this recently.] It seems the Auto Maker's bailout is hold up by the Unions and their worker's pensions. Maybe it's best if each person is alotted their own money to take care of their own pensions.


6) Really nationalize the banks and ban all derivatives trading (done during the Great Depression, I believe), instead of this de facto lending without oversight (much less more democratic control) There's no reason the banks should be nationalized--but I agree that derivatives should be limited or abolished.


7) Establish a fully nationalized "public works" program (although in reality "public works" should be expanded to broken neighbourhoods, alternative energy facilities construction, urban farming, etc.), instead of mere contracting out to the money-grubbing private sector.

The problem is that the government has been so lousy at running public works programs--but it may be worth trying.

[Bud Struggle]

Oh, and here's something fairly rediculous:


Companies planning to axe jobs or cut working hours should be taken into public hands and run in the interest of the workers and wider society.

So let's say a company with 20 employees is loosing moeny because of the financial situation and is planning to lay off 5 employees--so the government should BUY the company for maybe 5 million (at least in the US according to the Bill of Rights the government can't take over any property withhout just recompence) set up some some agency to over see the company costing maybe a million. Then they have to run the company at a loss for an unknown amount of time--just to save the jobs of five workers.

Best just to pay the laid off workers unemployment.

Anyway, you can see why Socialism hasn't been working so far. :)

[danyboy27]

Oh, and here's something fairly rediculous:



So let's say a company with 20 employees is loosing moeny because of the financial situation and is planning to lay off 5 employees--so the government should BUY the company for maybe 5 million (at least in the US according to the Bill of Rights the government can't take over any property withhout just recompence) set up some some agency to over see the company costing maybe a million. Then they have to run the company at a loss for an unknown amount of time--just to save the jobs of five workers.

Best just to pay the laid off workers unemployment.

Anyway, you can see why Socialism hasn't been working so far. :)

i kinda agree with tomk here.
but i think buisness with losses should be taken over by the state then re-engineered to be profitable, if it mean take 5 worker and drop him in a sector where they will be more useful.

socialism could work, but would require extensive micromanagement and logical tyhinking.

[Bud Struggle]

but i think buisness with losses should be taken over by the state then re-engineered to be profitable, if it mean take 5 worker and drop him in a sector where they will be more useful.

What makes you think that government could make ANYTHING profitable? Government has proven time and time again they lack that ability.

Failing companies should FAIL, there is after all a very good reason they are failing.

[RGacky3]

What makes you think that government could make ANYTHING profitable? Government has proven time and time again they lack that ability.


A Socialist run economy would'nt be trying to be profitable, it would be trying to fulfill a public need the best way possible.

TomK I urge you to read up about Catolina under the CNT, so you can see how a REAL communist society is run.

[Bud Struggle]

A Socialist run economy would'nt be trying to be profitable, it would be trying to fulfill a public need the best way possible. Russia is full of Public Housing that fulfilled a public need--without looking to competitive in any way. Public built Section 8 housing functions in the same way. People would rather live out on the streets than live in those kind of places. It doesn't work. It's not a matter of tweeking it a bit--it just doesn't work.


TomK I urge you to read up about Catolina under the CNT, so you can see how a REAL communist society is run.

CNT? I will read it.

And yes any utopian community could last a few months in some sort of idyllic splendor--they the proof is in the day to day grind of make a total society habitable by all sort of people that may or may not fit in the system--and also take all sorts of abuses from the outside.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

So let's say a company with 20 employees is loosing moeny because of the financial situation and is planning to lay off 5 employees--so the government should BUY the company for maybe 5 million (at least in the US according to the Bill of Rights the government can't take over any property withhout just recompence) set up some some agency to over see the company costing maybe a million. Then they have to run the company at a loss for an unknown amount of time--just to save the jobs of five workers.

I agree with your point but that company's cuts wouldn't effect the economy, and thereby my welfare, while letting millions of workers get laid off would.



Best just to pay the laid off workers unemployment.The effect of layoffs of the nature we're now faced with would be horrific, condemning hundreds of communities to a horrible fate.


What makes you think that government could make ANYTHING profitable? Government has proven time and time again they lack that ability.Profitability is the biggest concern? A lot of stuff is going to lose profitability in the short-term, the big concern now is averting economic catastrophe.



Failing companies should FAIL, there is after all a very good reason they are failing. It was logic like this (ironically then spinned from GM) that resulted in us ripping out the streetcars almost every US metropolis had.

Gee, that paid off in the long run.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Where does the money come from to pay for the extra workers time? Employers are faced with layoffs--for them to put MORE people on with less income would be pretty difficult.

Ask the same folks who opposed the 40-hour workweek back in the day. :)


I'd be for that. The rich purchase a lot more than the poor--it's unfair. Unfortunately, this is where a lot of state income comes from. How would one make up the shortfall?

Actually, the elimination of sales taxes (inherently regressive) would help "the poor" a lot more. The "luxury tax" shortfall can be made up by the second proposal of mine, which would allow voters to hike takes on "the rich" (and notice my differentiation of the various types of income, especially cap gains and progressive taxation on estates). :)


Have anyone ever been part of a "worker's co-op"? I've been in business for 25 years and have never seen one. If such things reall worked wouldn't you think they would be all over the place?

Because owners typically don't want to sell to their employees, who in turn either don't have the $$$ during the good times (because the firm values are too high) or are rejected during the bad (even when firm values are low enough, the owners just want to shut down). :rolleyes:


So let's say a company with 20 employees is loosing moeny because of the financial situation and is planning to lay off 5 employees--so the government should BUY the company for maybe 5 million (at least in the US according to the Bill of Rights the government can't take over any property withhout just recompence) set up some some agency to over see the company costing maybe a million. Then they have to run the company at a loss for an unknown amount of time--just to save the jobs of five workers.

Keep in mind, though, that your scenario doesn't take into consideration decreases in firm value (which would still be in line with the "Bill of Rights"). Companies on the verge of bankruptcy can and should be bought for less (for nickels and dimes per share, if need be).

[danyboy27]

What makes you think that government could make ANYTHING profitable? Government has proven time and time again they lack that ability.

Failing companies should FAIL, there is after all a very good reason they are failing.


governements can make a profit out of something AND deserve the public.
In quebec, our electic buisness is owned by the governement, beccause of that we got incredibly low cost electricity AND we sell surplus to the us, so we can use that money for our public institutions.

a governement can work for the people, but in the current system, have no choice but to look for money, social institution is a constantly demanding more and more.

i am totally against just buying time for failed buisness, bur reorganizing an institution its a whole other thing.

20 million people in welfare in the us soon, all specialized workers with great skill, keeping them unemployed is both a crime, and a waste of talent.

they made car, what stop them to make something else?

[RGacky3]

And yes any utopian community could last a few months in some sort of idyllic splendor--they the proof is in the day to day grind of make a total society habitable by all sort of people that may or may not fit in the system--and also take all sorts of abuses from the outside.

It lasted quite a while, and Catolina (including Barcelona) is quite a big place with a lot of different type of people.

And it took a LOT of ABUSES from both sides all with foreign support and a lot more money, and lasted very long, probably longer than an authoritarian socialist structure or Capitalist structure would.

But look it up, read about it, its very enlightening about real communism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Over on another board, I heard mainstream ruminations from the political big shots about the need to temporary nationalize some banks outright. I read an article from FT's William Buiter, who argued that there really is no strong argument for private ownership of banking if it's the state that guarantees deposits.

So why not "nationalize" all banks at market values during insolvencies? [Yeah, it's de facto expropriation, but the concept of market value is being "fairly" applied here.]