NationStates Jolt Archive

A theory regarding capitalism.

Crossing quantum and economics.

Eventually EVERYTHING will happen.
Therefore eventually, a socialist will become leader of a multinational company.

In this posistion a socialist could.
Cut wages to the executives and fire those that disagree, employing other socialists.
Redirect funding into research and devolopment (Which is shockingly low in todays markets, with most companies opting to line their pockets rather than research products.)

Suddenly this company has the edge, it will muscle out the other companies with its better brands and shinier things.

The company becomes powerful, more profit and raised wages to the workers.

Perhaps eventually it could become a Super-Corporation employing the majority of the populace.

Now, everyone has lots of pay and good products to buy.

Say, the socialist in charge took it upon himself to run for government, and succeeded.

The socialist could lower and perhaps eliminate most taxes, selling everything off to the company.

The company which everyone buys its things from, could provide free healthcare to employees.

This means that the company would in effect be the state, having absorbed it, and it would have influence all over the world.

Say the socialist decides "We should elect our executives."
Suddenly its a much better world.

Thoughts and comments please.

Poll coming.

Wow...

if by "better" you mean "monopolized market where prices are raised at the whim of the people in charge rather than a competetive market where prices are lowered in an attempt to draw customers away from the competition, where people are not given the freedom to choose one product over another because no alternative exists, and everyone makes no money because the only available employer has no need to raise wages and benefits in order to attract employees, because the only alternative to working for the company is unemployment"


yea, if this were to happen, it certainly would be a "better" world

Wow...

What sort of wow.

Wow awesome.
Wow oh my god its retarded.
Wow you take forever to say nothing at all.
Wow i found out my internet works?

if by "better" you mean "monopolized market where prices are raised at the whim of the people in charge rather than a competetive market where prices are lowered in an attempt to draw customers away from the competition, where people are not given the freedom to choose one product over another because no alternative exists, and everyone makes no money because the only available employer has no need to raise wages and benefits in order to attract employees, because the only alternative to working for the company is unemployment"


yea, if this were to happen, it certainly would be a "better" world

If the company elected its executives.

If the company elected its executives.

then only the people who work for the company would get votes.

did you read what I wrote at all?

you know: the thing about prices going through the roof and wages going through the floor because of a lack of competition and alternatives?

A theory regarding capitalism.

Crossing quantum and economics.

Eventually EVERYTHING will happen.
Therefore eventually, a socialist will become leader of a multinational company.

In this posistion a socialist could.
Cut wages to the executives and fire those that disagree, employing other socialists.
Redirect funding into research and devolopment (Which is shockingly low in todays markets, with most companies opting to line their pockets rather than research products.)

Suddenly this company has the edge, it will muscle out the other companies with its better brands and shinier things.

The company becomes powerful, more profit and raised wages to the workers.

Perhaps eventually it could become a Super-Corporation employing the majority of the populace.

Now, everyone has lots of pay and good products to buy.

Say, the socialist in charge took it upon himself to run for government, and succeeded.

The socialist could lower and perhaps eliminate most taxes, selling everything off to the company.

The company which everyone buys its things from, could provide free healthcare to employees.

This means that the company would in effect be the state, having absorbed it, and it would have influence all over the world.

Say the socialist decides "We should elect our executives."
Suddenly its a much better world.

Thoughts and comments please.


Sounds like a social evolution from super isolated frontier village to monarch.

Anything is theoretically possible with a benevolent dictator.

If you were the "king of the world" and had the power to kill off everyone but your closest group of 1000 people, and had perfect knowledge as to what to do to run a successful economy, and did so, and grew your 1000 people into a population of 100,000,000 people, with your ancestors being perfect administrators of society, and "when the people were ready" give them a fully functioning democracy,.. would THAT be a good thing?

The biggest problem with this idea is this: What happens if the socialist dies halfway through, and then someone more ambitious and less benevolent than him makes a bid for power, especially if this is during the part where the company is all-powerful, but before it makes the transition to a communistic economy.

That is the biggest problem with marx's idea of the communist takeover; it has no choice but to divert itself through a period of dictatorship in order to make the change, and very few dictators are willing to give up their power.

As we all know, the efficiency of ideologically-driven corporations is the most effective model for running them. That's why Pemex is nearly bankrupt and has falling output despite a 700% runup in oil prices or why Venezuelan oil production has plunged by a third since Chavez kicked out the experienced oil workers and replaced them with cronies, or why Soviet consumer goods fell apart from shoddy work in a few months, or why Hindustan Motors didn't develop a new car in its entire history choosing instead to produce a model from the late 1940's...

All you would create is a massively inefficient, corrupt technologically stagnant, and ultimately unsustainable corporation that would collapse and cost thousands of workers their jobs. Even worse, if they got control of most of the economy you would have a total monopoly that would enslave its employees in a sick parody of a "workers' paradise". Actually, you'd just end up creating a new USSR, and we all know how well off their citizens were.

And, if we use quantum theory then the anarcho-capitalist philosophy could work just as well in this other world, since it's concievably possible that it could at some point in time.

Read Joseph Schumpeter.

Despite thinking that capitalism is awesome and being firmly convinced of the heroic entrepreneur and "creative destruction" being a good thing - he didn't think such a system could survive because the social pressures caused by so much flexibility and change would destroy it.

I voted for the last one. I really don't hate you, you pets.... but I thought it was funny. Plus, I'm very antiSocialist, so...

Capitalism has already became more socialist to survive. What do you think stocks are? You buy them then you are a partner to profit. It distributes the wealth. But not also its possible to lose money so its a good mechanism, not utopic but realistic. It only needs to become more and more socialist to become better, until it reaches middle ground.

Same thing happened to communism too, they started giving some bonus to their managers and even started to use commercials to make people choose necessary factories products to balance consumption.

Türkiye had a karmic economy system at 1930's which saved it greatly from worlds economic cirissis if not entirely. American intervention in Türkiye at cold war and Türkiye's acceptance of American intervention to stand against Soviets scrapped much of our socialist practices which increasingly harmed our industrial growth because we lacked a rich middle class after first world war to engage into profitable business by themselves. If it were to continue at it started without ourside interference today we would be probably witnessing one of the best balanced mixed economies in the world.
Politic choices must be kept away from economy and practicality must take everythings place.
Short of it : Put a hippie as a manager if it makes business better :p

Yeah, let's rely on rich capitalists to lead our liberation! Unquestionably trustworthy, of course; who could possibly think otherwise?

Here's the problem.

Without competent executives (and you won't have competent executives if you're not willing to pay for them - ask Ben & Jerry's), the company will make lousy decisions. Even assuming that your socialist CEO is a genius, he can't manage every variable himself - he'll need skilled underlings and simply won't have them.

Yeah, let's rely on rich capitalists to lead our liberation! Unquestionably trustworthy, of course; who could possibly think otherwise?

The idea behind this post is almost as brilliant as the Vanguard party. Why, they'd never think to stab us in the back. They're rich; they always think of what's best for everyone.:rolleyes:

Cut wages to the executives and fire those that disagree, employing other socialists.
Thus the company has only incompetent management as they have difficulty attracting any halfway decent management.

Redirect funding into research and devolopment (Which is shockingly low in todays markets, with most companies opting to line their pockets rather than research products.)
Most companies put a lot of money and effort into research and development – coming up with new products or new processes are ways of lining one’s pockets as you capture greater market share or reduce production costs.

Suddenly this company has the edge, it will muscle out the other companies with its better brands and shinier things.
Being run by a socialist will not magically make everything better – your products will not somehow have a massive boost in quality because you cut executive pay. More likely the opposite will occur – the higher labor costs of paying workers more (which greatly outnumbers the savings of slashing executive pay) means you will have to drastically cut costs in other areas (like R&D, high quality raw materials, etc) and/or drastically raise prices. Either way you rapidly loose market share and run the company into the ground.

The company becomes powerful, more profit and raised wages to the workers.
Perhaps eventually it could become a Super-Corporation employing the majority of the populace.
The company has no profit as it has incompetent management and no investment capital because any potential investors are running scared.

Now, everyone has lots of pay and good products to buy.
Company soon goes out of business, so no pay. Products are of fairly questionable quality as they are designed to socialist ideals, rather than market forces, and the company lacks the capital to produce high quality goods.

The socialist could lower and perhaps eliminate most taxes, selling everything off to the company. The company which everyone buys its things from, could provide free healthcare to employees.
Where would the company get the money to stay in business, much less provide high salaries and comprehensive benefits to employees? Socialist comities would not design the most efficient production methods, investment strategies, marketing campaigns, most advantageous vendor contracting, or any other source of value in a company. They would not produce the best products at the cheapest price – thus they would not be able to dominate the market nor make a substantial profit on a large scale. Efficiency, productivity, and cost-savings are products of capitalism (not that every company has all 3).

The only hope for such a company would be to make high-markup products and pitch it to the highly affluent in an attempt to carve out a niche-market. This would allow them to pay high salaries to a small workforce, but they would never be able to grow to substantial numbers.

That is a good point. This theory would depend on not just one genius socialist, but enough to run an entire company, and they would have to be genius enough to run the company better than their capitalist competitors.

It's a fallacy that companies don't do research. It's more true that they don't do much research in areas they don't see a direct profit in, but they research the hell out of that which does. If they didn't, they would fall behind in about five years, when the latest batch of the newest tech showed up. I mean, hell, you didn't think all the technoligical advances over the last sixty years didn't require research, did you?