Print

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

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Time to become a real junta!

That is not as serious as it sounds. So far I see Right Sector's PR and strong hint to Poroshenko that reform of police should accelerate because it is still full of obvious pro-Russian and\or very corrupted individuals

[smjjames]

An internal revolt like that really isn't going to help the countries stability, plus it'll give the rebels a chance to regroup and rearm while west Ukraine is fighting itself.

[Owlbread]

Hey guys, just dropping in to apologize to Owlbread. This happened.

Look, we don't like him, we are trying to get rid of him, we are sorry. We will send you a nice fruit basket in the mail.

It is ok Max, don't worry. I understand. But honestly I think that if this endorsement will have any effect at all (I don't think anyone noticed) it won't exactly help the Unionist campaign; considering that anyone who knows who Abbott is knows he's some kind of climate-change denying, sexist, ultra conservative jug eared madman.

[Sergarr]

...lack of work... not as much of a problem in capitalism.

Oh yeah, that's why unemployment is not a problem in most modern capitalist countries... oh wait, it is.

[Reelya]

I think you really need to distinguish between the definition of Marx's communism vs Leninism/Stalinism.

Marx's version is much closer to Anarcho-Syndicalist ideas than it is to anything that happened under the USSR, so mixing up definitions just gets confusing as to what you're advocating.

When Marx talks about workers controlling the means of production, he fundamentally means to do away with the owners & managers of corporations and have the workers run individual workplaces in some democratic means. That's what he meant by "getting rid of classes". Management is a class separate from the workers.

And the goal was that each worker gets 100% of the labor-value of their work, not that each worker gets a set wage. Whether it's owners or a government skimming a percentage off the top of the value the worker created, both those things are basically things that Marxism was opposed to.

[mainiac]

I have said no such thing. The only thing is said was that economic inefficiency was a huge problem of any communistic system, and the the innovation of information technology should allow this to be resolved. For one, updating your economic plans more than once in the 5 years should be beneficial.

The problems with the USSR weren't lack of information.  Military spending was 1/3rd of GDP right before the collapse.  Corruption was rampant.  Computers dont magically solve corruption.  The honestly just make it easier.

A capitalist system will collapse. An excess of labor will result, automatically, in average wages going down, due to the laws of supply and demand.

This would be completely unprecedented in industrial economic theory and contradicted by basic theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobb%E2%80%93Douglas_production_function

BTW, I'm guessing you haven't read Marx because Marx predicted that rising capital in sectors like textiles and steel would produce the same effect that you predict due to computers and we saw how well that prediction worked with the Soviet Union the first time around.

[Owlbread]

What 10ebbor10 seems to mean is that the totalitarian state-socialism with planned economy etc characteristic of "Communist" states in the 20th century would work a lot better in the modern era. I don't know if "Communism" i.e. the anarchic, stateless society that all Communist states were supposed to be striving for would actually be more attainable now than it was 100 years ago. As I said a few pages ago Nestor Makhno came pretty damned close at the turn of the century, I think it would be hard to do that now.

[smjjames]

Yeah, 'communist' China is a Communist-Capitalist hybrid, though the leadership is still very much communist.

Don't know about Vietnam and Cuba. North Korea is like a deviant form of communism or something.

[BlindKitty]

After hitting this gem:

(...)and in economic terms there is no difference between a human and a horse.(...)

I've honestly stopped reading and I won't even try to explain how it is wrong, because I've had enough teaching pre-schoolers back in the tutoring day.

10ebbor10, think of me whatever you want, I'm not even trying to continue the discussion, for reason, see above.

Reelya, I don't care what utopia Marx was writing about; if somebody wants Marx's system, let them write about Marxism, not communism, which we all know what it was. At least here in Eastern Europe.

[Sergarr]

The free market doesn't just magically make jobs for horses because their old positions were automated, and in economic terms there is no difference between a human and a horse.

nice strawmen BlindKitty.

[Reelya]

Soviet "Communism" would have actually been more efficient taking into account more Marxist ideas.

One problem was the "set wage" rules coupled with 100% full-employment discouraged people from working hard. Why work hard when you'll get paid the same either way, and they can't sack you because the state will give you another job just the same? Also, hard workers get harassed by other workers when there's a set wage: "don't make the rest of us look bad and have to work harder than the minimum!".

Marx's version of socialism was meant to give the workers a bigger share of the actual value they created (originally 100% but it was debated how roads, etc, would be funded so they decided a small tax would be necessary to pay for public works). This is equivalent to "profit sharing" systems which are definitely shown to boost work productivity and motivation. USSR didn't need computers, they needed to link pay to productivity, which is actually more in line with Marx's socialism. Just that one change would have made a massive difference. And overall wages wouldn't have need to go up much: have a lower base pay and more % as productivity-linked.

[Max White]

After hitting this gem:

(...)there is no difference between a human and a horse.(...)

I've honestly stopped reading and I won't even try to explain how it is wrong, because I've had enough teaching pre-schoolers back in the tutoring day.

I think your emotions have you thinking you are too special to be economically outclassed. Horse, human, computer, what ever, anything that is productive. You own yourself and you are free to rent yourself out to work, much like you might rent out anything else, just don't be surprised when any given thing becomes redundant.
Humans have had the same basic design for a while now... Although if you want to get into transhumanism that is another kettle of fish!

[Owlbread]

Yeah, 'communist' China is a Communist-Capitalist hybrid, though the leadership is still very much communist.

Don't know about Vietnam and Cuba. North Korea is like a deviant form of communism or something.

Are you quite sure about that? I can't see China trying to abolish the state any time soon. If anything the leadership has just managed to strengthen its grip on Chinese life through the exploitation of weaknesses in the Socialist/Dictatorship stage of the Communist system.

Reelya, I don't care what utopia Marx was writing about; if somebody wants Marx's system, let them write about Marxism, not communism, which we all know what it was. At least here in Eastern Europe.

I have no idea what this means. "Let them write about Marxism, not communism, which we all know what it was" - Can you explain what you think Communism is and what you think Marxism is?

[smjjames]

Yeah, 'communist' China is a Communist-Capitalist hybrid, though the leadership is still very much communist.

Don't know about Vietnam and Cuba. North Korea is like a deviant form of communism or something.

Are you quite sure about that? I can't see China trying to abolish the state any time soon. If anything the leadership has just managed to strengthen its grip on Chinese life through the exploitation of weaknesses in the Socialist/Dictatorship stage of the Communist system.

Huh? I never said anything about abolishing the state, just that China is a hybrid of capitalist economics and communist leadership. Actually, the economics might also be a hybrid of capitalism and communism. Red King would know more about that than I do.

Maybe I'm also mixing Marxist Communism vs Leninist/Stalinist Communism, I dunno.

[Owlbread]

Huh? I never said anything about abolishing the state, just that China is a hybrid of capitalist economics and communist leadership. Actually, the economics might also be a hybrid of capitalism and communism. Red King would know more about that than I do.

Maybe I'm also mixing Marxist Communism vs Leninist/Stalinist Communism, I dunno.

But if the leadership was actually Communist then they would be working towards abolishing the state and abolishing money, creating an anarchist (or Communist, as they called it) society. The Chinese leadership doesn't seem to be working towards that at all, so they're not actually Communist at all. They are Communist in name only.