Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Guardian G.I.]

The costs of maintaining a computer system controlling the flow of goods would be just as gigantic as maintaining a giant network of paper pushers doing the same thing.

Now this is just silly. Sure, setting it up would be expensive, and there'd be plenty of manpower involved keeping it up to date where it can't be automated, but the costs of the two just wouldn't be comparable. There is a reason automation has taken over practically everything people could put it towards. I would be an order of magnitude cheaper than people.

I meant that the cost of developing and maintaining such a system during the Soviet times (around 1970s - 1980s) would be enormous.

[misko27]

1. And is that how it ever, ever, ever worked out in any off all the communit countries in the last 100 years?

Yah, I guess attempting to make iron on your crop fields for The People (aka the Communist Party and Government and Friends) would further your own interests

It always works out for Tito. Specifically because he was the most successful person ever to run the Balkans. Until someone somewhere can explain to me why that is, there is a fundamental black-mark against Democracy in my book.


Also, it should be noted that the definition of Communism imaginable and fascism are very similar in certain ways, and very different. Both are completely state-owned societies, Free enterprise is abolished and and the collective over the individual, the key difference is that Communism works to abolish differences between people, while Fascism enshrines it and codifies differences as law. So what you are describing, the self-declared Communist societies, aren't actually communist. By definition they aren't. Communism has multiple problems, but that is simply a view based on people who call themselves Communist incorrectly.

Capitalism and Democracy are the worst possible of economic and political systems, except for all the others that we've tried.

Ah, yes, Mr Churchill. He also went on record to say that the best argument against a democracy was a 5 min chat with a typical voter, a statement which has some weight IMHO.

VOTE, n. The instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country.

[GreatJustice]

The hypothetical Communist citizen's incentive is...

Having a nicer life. By furthering the common interest, we can further our own self interests.

Also, note: I do support some scaling in terms of payment: more difficult and more unpleasant jobs should have greater rewards. I just want those rewards to actually reflect on how difficult and unpleasant a job is, and I want the scaling to be relatively gentle.

Okay, but that doesn't work in reality, and besides the calculation problem (which I already went over), the problem with incentives is another nail in the Communist coffin.

Imagine you work on a collective farm with 99 other workers picking potatoes. Of these potato pickers, let's assume that each picks an average of 10 bags of potatoes a day for a total of 1000 potato bags, of which some are given to those who make other products and the rest are left for eating. So each worker receives the equivalent value of 10 bags of potatoes each day. So imagine that one day, in a fit of "self interest", you decide to work to become a great potato picker, and manage to increase your picking rate to 12 bags each day, or a 20% increase. Despite increasing your picking speed by 20%, the total pool of potatoes has only increased to 1002, and you now receive the value of... 10.02 bags of potatoes each day. Now imagine you become a god of potato pickers and increase your speed to 30 bags each day. Despite having increased your speed by a colossal 300%, you only receive 10.3 bags each day, meaning you still haven't functionally improved your position. Inversely, if you slack off and only pick 1 bag each day, you receive 9.91 bags each day, despite contributing next to nothing. Unless potato picking fills you with joy, the "optimal" thing for you to do every day is to slack off and let everyone else increase picking on your behalf since your contribution is very nearly irrelevant regardless of how hard working or lazy your coworkers are.

[Morrigi]

Yeah, capitalism totally doesn't work... It's not like China fully integrated it with its communist tendencies and are experiencing a huge industrial growth rate and are setting up plans to expand their currency to compete with the dollar or anything.

[MonkeyHead]

It doesn't work in as much as there is still abundant poverty in the worlds richest nations, and that in some it ways acts to divide the rich and poorer even further. Its not the Chinese citizens getting rich off thier efforts. Hell, Look at the US recently, with the banking scandals and 99% motto...

I think the term I am looking for is "not long term sustainable", without resorting to constructs such as interest, inflation, credit and such like that we have all grown to accept.

[Sergarr]

Yeah, capitalism totally doesn't work... It's not like China fully integrated it with its communist tendencies and are experiencing a huge industrial growth rate and are setting up plans to expand their currency to compete with the dollar or anything.

At a cost of completely neglecting basic work safety (because there are always more Chinese workers)? Sure, ok.

EDIT: found the post which neatly describes what's wrong with China:
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=87619.msg2389206;topicseen#msg2389206

[Bauglir]

Capitalism is fantastic if you ignore its downsides in favor of focusing on every other system's.

EDIT: It's merely "not the worst" otherwise. Fucked if I know what the best is.

[Angle]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The hypothetical Communist citizen's incentive is...

Having a nicer life. By furthering the common interest, we can further our own self interests.

Also, note: I do support some scaling in terms of payment: more difficult and more unpleasant jobs should have greater rewards. I just want those rewards to actually reflect on how difficult and unpleasant a job is, and I want the scaling to be relatively gentle.

Okay, but that doesn't work in reality, and besides the calculation problem (which I already went over), the problem with incentives is another nail in the Communist coffin.

Imagine you work on a collective farm with 99 other workers picking potatoes. Of these potato pickers, let's assume that each picks an average of 10 bags of potatoes a day for a total of 1000 potato bags, of which some are given to those who make other products and the rest are left for eating. So each worker receives the equivalent value of 10 bags of potatoes each day. So imagine that one day, in a fit of "self interest", you decide to work to become a great potato picker, and manage to increase your picking rate to 12 bags each day, or a 20% increase. Despite increasing your picking speed by 20%, the total pool of potatoes has only increased to 1002, and you now receive the value of... 10.02 bags of potatoes each day. Now imagine you become a god of potato pickers and increase your speed to 30 bags each day. Despite having increased your speed by a colossal 300%, you only receive 10.3 bags each day, meaning you still haven't functionally improved your position. Inversely, if you slack off and only pick 1 bag each day, you receive 9.91 bags each day, despite contributing next to nothing. Unless potato picking fills you with joy, the "optimal" thing for you to do every day is to slack off and let everyone else increase picking on your behalf since your contribution is very nearly irrelevant regardless of how hard working or lazy your coworkers are.

That's an odd example, seeing as most capitalist versions of that institution don't scale pay at all based on how much work you do. If you do enough to avoid getting fired, you get your minimum wage, if you don't, then you get the axe. If I were organizing that potato farm according to my communist ideals, I'd probably have payment be based on how difficult & undesirable the job is, with slight adjustments based on how productive you were. If you were unproductive enough, the rest of the group might vote to dismiss you, leaving you to find another job or get welfare. And of course, most of the incentive would probably come from your coworkers calling you lazy. 

On a societal level, I'd want to put a lot of resources towards things like medical research and therapy, so that people who aren't able to
work for some reason or another can be treated so they can. And of course, I'd definitely automate potato picking. 

Note, my communist ideals vary fairly significantly from the more mainstream ones. I want a decentralized communist economy, and a very thoroughly democratic government.

[Sergarr]

The biggest problem with communism is not only that people don't have much of a reason to work hard.

The worst problem is that people start to see the products of work of the other people as something that's always there. This leads to horrible waste of thousands of hours of work in hands of people who think that "nah, it's no matter, there's always more".

[Bauglir]

That actually happens in any economy that produces a civilization. How many people in Western countries do you think seriously consider how frickin' sweet it is to have paved roads? Also, when it comes to wasting hours of work, have you heard of the concept of planned obsolescence? That's something that's purely capitalistic.

[Loud Whispers]

That actually happens in any economy that produces a civilization. How many people in Western countries do you think seriously consider how frickin' sweet it is to have paved roads?

I see the symbols of Breton oppression at the hands of evil Imperialist Romans.

REMOVE EMPEROR remove emperor HANNIBAL ALIVE hannibal alive in Carthage make war elephants GIVE BACK BRETON CLAY give back breton clay SACK OF ROME BEST DAY OF MY LIFE

If I were organizing that potato farm according to my communist ideals, I'd probably have payment be based on how difficult & undesirable the job is, with slight adjustments based on how productive you were.

What if your job is difficult, undesirable and yet has no relevance to society whatsoever? How would you decide what is relevant or not, and would it affect how much a worker is paid for it?

[Descan]

Why is someone doing it if it isn't relevant?

[MonkeyHead]

TBH communist production methods worked really well when it mattered - dragging the country up from the floor in WW2 to drive the Germans back to Berlin. Then the USSR produced more of pretty much everything than anyone else, though it didnt take a genius to plan the production of guns and stuff during a war, and it didnt last once the cold war got going. Granted, you really didnt want to work in a factory for them, but still, not dying was a good incentive (either under the Nazi jackboot or in front of the commisars firing squad) - though thats more of a quality of a dictatorship rather than communism.

Is it time to bring up a parecon again yet as a third or fourth alternative and pretty much untried way?

Why is someone doing it if it isn't relevant?

As they really like doing it? Though thats not a good argument ofr expecting renumeration for doing it.

[Sergarr]

Parecon, huh? Interesting. I don't think that could work in a large country at all. Also looks incredibly weak to aggressive actions.

[Loud Whispers]

TBH communist production methods worked really well when it mattered - dragging the country up from the floor in WW2 to drive the Germans back to Berlin.

Eh, on that same argument we should all be Nazis because they managed to make their economy strong enough to take on all of the world powers at the same time for the first few years. Though their currency did hold merit I'd reckon, at least on an ideal level; money that has its worth backed by labour, not by debt.