NationStates Jolt Archive

Awesome. I want a helicopter.
What?

Capitalism is not a government. There is no force involved.

It depends on government or at least thugs to enforce property laws. Without property laws or extreme indoctrination, it cannot exist.

Are you saying that in a communist state, there is no need for police?

A genuine communist state is an oxymoron. Real communism lacks social classes and thus lacks a government.

I definately agree that communism will not work with the way people think and act. It would take a great stride in personal growth that few humans seem capable of achieving.

Capitolism on the other hand works because it feeds our deepest nature to fight and claw at each other, unfortunately it cannot truely work either.

The big issue is the guy at the bottom eventually cannot stand and everyone standing on his or her shoulders falls with them. Thus while true capitolism will not last more than a couple years, pseudo capitolistic countries like the US can seem strong for a good many years by ensuring enough socialized assistance and regulations to keep the foundation strong enough until something drastic happens.

My view is looking at capitolism in the strength that the US holds has serious draw backs, for instance the poor spend most of the money, the wealthy have most of it. When the economy takes a hit, the rich try to urge the poorer classes to spend more money and thus gain more control of the power. As the poor fail to keep it up eventually the socialized assistance in the nation starts to waiver but the rich do nothing about this except to layoff people and cut back costs to keep themselves "safer". This creates a chain reaction like that in true capitolism except at a slower rate. Other counties are much more stable than the US because the top 1% do not control so much, this makes it harder to cause serious damage to the economy as the wealth is more spread out.

It is not about which is better, capitolism, socialism, or communism, as they all have great strengths and great weaknesses. The biggest issue that should be on the minds of all is how do we find the best balance between them. In any event the US grows further away from being a strong economical nation to one which has a weak foundation, I see it as a matter of time before it all come tumbling down and there will be nothing we can do to stop it once it happens.

1 Billion dollars can generate over 10,000 good paying jobs with equipment and training, how many people have billions lying around that they could spend to do any number of things, but instead horde the money.

Hording money to me is stupid, if you have that much money why do you care what happens to even half of it. Retire, you don't need more, live a life of pure bliss, hire people to serve your every desire, pay them well, and as a result the economy will improve. Money is not true power, the ability to enjoy your life is the only true power. Money can't buy true love, happiness, or true friendship, it is just a piece of paper, like other raw resources their value is only measured in their use.

I definately agree that communism will not work with the way people think and act. It would take a great stride in personal growth that few humans seem capable of achieving.

Capitolism on the other hand works because it feeds our deepest nature to fight and claw at each other, unfortunately it cannot truely work either.
The way people think and act is a biproduct of systemic and economic conditions. What capitalism (not capitolism ;), its ok though) does is simply set the "natuere" that you discribe. And no it is not a base human nature to fight and compete with one another. If it is this is news to me and the entire scientific community.

The big issue is the guy at the bottom eventually cannot stand and everyone standing on his or her shoulders falls with them. Thus while true capitolism will not last more than a couple years, pseudo capitolistic countries like the US can seem strong for a good many years by ensuring enough socialized assistance and regulations to keep the foundation strong enough until something drastic happens.
Except the guys on the bottem are holding up a very few but extremely heavy people. If a group of 99 stand up and the one guy on top falls on I'd consider that justified. he shouldn't have been standing there in the first place.

My view is looking at capitolism in the strength that the US holds has serious draw backs, for instance the poor spend most of the money, the wealthy have most of it. When the economy takes a hit, the rich try to urge the poorer classes to spend more money and thus gain more control of the power. As the poor fail to keep it up eventually the socialized assistance in the nation starts to waiver but the rich do nothing about this except to layoff people and cut back costs to keep themselves "safer". This creates a chain reaction like that in true capitolism except at a slower rate. Other counties are much more stable than the US because the top 1% do not control so much, this makes it harder to cause serious damage to the economy as the wealth is more spread out.
well put, but the same thing is happening in most countries faster, not slower because most are capitalist dictatorships which (as implied) are not democratic and have not included socialistic elements into themselves to prevent the decline. Instead they use force etc... you know the story.

It is not about which is better, capitolism, socialism, or communism, as they all have great strengths and great weaknesses. The biggest issue that should be on the minds of all is how do we find the best balance between them. In any event the US grows further away from being a strong economical nation to one which has a weak foundation, I see it as a matter of time before it all come tumbling down and there will be nothing we can do to stop it once it happens.
Unfortunatelly Capitalism and Communism cannot exist together in a form because they are completely different systems. Try thinking about a fudalistic capitalist country, it wouldn't work, because they're completely different systems, just like Capitalism and Communism.

1 Billion dollars can generate over 10,000 good paying jobs with equipment and training, how many people have billions lying around that they could spend to do any number of things, but instead horde the money.

Hording money to me is stupid, if you have that much money why do you care what happens to even half of it. Retire, you don't need more, live a life of pure bliss, hire people to serve your every desire, pay them well, and as a result the economy will improve. Money is not true power, the ability to enjoy your life is the only true power. Money can't buy true love, happiness, or true friendship, it is just a piece of paper, like other raw resources their value is only measured in their use.
Because under Capitalism money=power, so the more money the more power. Get the picture? Although the money isn't 'true' power as you say, 'true' power is not the kind that capitalists aspire to.

Good post though :) at least you see bots sides somewhat.

Seems odd to me how much some people on the side of Capitalism grasp at basic ideals that are as much or more a part of other systems as they are captialistic. 'no work, no food.' being one of them. It doesnt make sense for a communist group to support an individual who refuses to take part in the group. Its the capitalist system where many can avoid work because of what they happen to own despite never having worked for it.

Crimerate is nicely deterred in a communistic or socialistic state. You cant commit a crime as a means of advancing oneself. You cant be a career criminal. The concepts of greed and looking to taking advantage of whatever you can arent taught to you, so the mentality is less prominant. The government/society has a vested interest in you so you're more likely to see help, guidance, education, etc. The opportunity to do what it is you want to do and can do well is much more obtainable without ownership based restraints placed on you. The question isnt whether you can afford the education to be what you want, its whether you can do it or not. Its on your shoulders but everyone stands to benefit from your success so you dont carry the weight alone.

I cant get too deep into a debate on capitalism versus communism. I think socialism is the ideal basis for government but that ignoring the strengths of other systems instead of using them to strengthen your own is a bad idea.

OK then, whose justice? Your justice? And peace? What kind of justice do we apply to those who do not want peace? Obviously they need their brains washing or something...The justice of the greatest good for the greatest number, which is in fact the justice of everybody since if there is no justice for the greatest number the justice of the small minority can not last, therefore the justice of the greatest number is in the best interest of all.

And my point about the computers was not that communism results in total lack of choice, but that "the common good" is an extremely vague goal, when everyone wants different things. Given that in any society, nobody can taylor-make every single thing to fit what each individual wants, somebody would have to decide what was in the public good to develop and what isnt, and inevitably, people would end up with too much of what they didnt want, and not enough of what they did, eg, when in the good ol' USSR they spent vast resources developing nice washing machines, and nuclear bombs and things, when people wanted food. (And please note, i am not saying this was communism, just that true communism would have to involve a similar decsicion making process).This is necessary. Somebody has to produce those goods and therefore decide how to produce those goods. He has to "guess" what is needed by the population. Analysts and the market can help his choice. This has nothing to do with the ownership of the capital though.
Let's make it clear. I'm 100% for the free market. I think the free market does not need private ownership of the capital (capitalism). I think the best system is social democratic free market communism.

The point about big coorporations making a similar decision making process is only true in industries where they have killed off all competition (where i suspect any regulators havnt been doing a good job), and the fact that thousands of new businesses are opening all the time suggests we havnt yet reached that stage. Maybe what we need is a new great depression so everyone can start again from scratch...
No it is due to the necessary concentration of the capital which happens in capitalism. A great depression is just a big concentration of the capital and the proletariat pays the price of it. It happens when the proletariat is not able to handle the bourgeois' cost anymore.

Perhaps you only think you get ignored alot because you assume anyone who reads your post will suddenly convert to your way of thinking.

Let me say that I am all in favour of democracy, and i believe it is the best system of government going. I do not believe though that you can decide the correct quota of one operating system to another though voting, that happens through market forces.Market forces are not the enemy of communism. The enemy of communism is the private capital.

There will never be enough resources to provide everything for everyone, so market forces determine which products go ahead (except when monopolies form etc), and result in the most number of people getting the best products bearing in mind resources available. This in my mind, is clearly preferable to a commitee deciding the best thing, or people going out everyday and putting what products they want in a ballot box so the goverment can make the right number.exactly, good analysys.

Im off now, but i would gladly continue this argument if i werent. pllease dont reply to this post by copy/pasting your last two again. bye!
I hope you can also have an argument with me.

Capitalism is not a government. There is no force involved.

Are you saying that in a communist state, there is no need for police?
No that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that the police should investigate murders, thefts and whatever, but not side with the mafia and do the murders and the thefts and whatever.

Awesome. I want a helicopter.
You have the money?
No? -> go to work.

But even in that situation. We will still own things won't we? Whether a skill or a posession. Would they not then trade their service or product. Say a craftsman works that little harder to get something extra, say a meal. would that not be the start of capitalism. A get the impression that alot of people here seem more interested in evening the "playing field" than changing the world.
Although I feel there could be alternatives to the capitalism system, whever now or in the future. Our "philosophy" for the lack of a better word, is not up to the challenge. I find that alot of you who are "pro-communist" call for equality in property, but not in mind.
This is not meant as an insult. It's just that are marred by capitalistic aggression like all of use. Without a true change in perception how can you expect to change the system?No That's not the start of capitalism. The start of capitalism is when somebody get another man to work for him and receive the reward of the other man.
I think the change of the system must start with education.

Actually, let's talk about this concept of ownership, because I think it is an important concept to grasp. Ownership makes sense for personnal things. That's because you're the only one needing your personnal things. I'm not interested in your tooth brush and you're not interested with my pants. Cars, meals, those are personnal things.
The problem arises when someone else needs your property : land, intellectual rights, factories, beaches, any mean of production... Those are not personnal things and it makes no sense that one man would own them.

I did say the start. It would start with barter system and move on from there. Then someone or later would say, "I know what don't we use thses bits of metal to signify such and such and that would be it

I did say the start. It would start with barter system and move on from there. Then someone or later would say, "I know what don't we use thses bits of metal to signify such and such and that would be it
What is the barter system? Please tell me more.

What is the barter system? Please tell me more.
Barter system is where you trade for goods instead of using currency. There is no money involved.

A genuine communist state is an oxymoron. Real communism lacks social classes and thus lacks a government.

And so it lacks crime as well?

Barter system is where you trade for goods instead of using currency. There is no money involved.
OK thanks. I think money is quite handy. I don't understand why you would remove it. Is there something I didn't see?

And so it lacks crime as well?In my opinion, there is less crime when crime is outlawed.
I'm not an anarchist though.

OK thanks. I think money is quite handy. I don't understand why you would remove it. Is there something I didn't see?

I think that I/we are used to talking with so-called anarcho-commies - who wish to do away with money.

Just so I understand you - you want the government to control the means of production, but allow free trade afterwards?

Is this right - or am I way off here?

I think that I/we are used to talking with so-called anarcho-commies - who wish to do away with money.

Just so I understand you - you want the government to control the means of production, but allow free trade afterwards?

Is this right - or am I way off here?What I want is difficult to explain in just one post. I want social democratic free market ecological communism and more.
Just talking on the small part of the politico-economy which is ownership of the capital, yes I want all the people to control the means of production, via the government (means the government must be democratic). I want free trade of goods, but not free trade of capital and neither free trade of slaves or free trade of weapons.

I think you are right about what I want, if I understand correctly what you said. At least it is what I think I want, until I'm convinced by something else.

How is production decided? What to make? How much? On what basis are the workers compensated?

What about jobs that don't produce anything? I need a haircut...are barbers state run as well?

How is production decided? What to make? How much? On what basis are the workers compensated?The market.

What about jobs that don't produce anything? I need a haircut...are barbers state run as well?
A service is something. An haircut is something. It's work. It should be paid.
The barber has no salary, the haircut is personal, there is no problem.

Who is paying to build the factories?

So there is no chance to invest in this system?

The market.

A service is something. An haircut is something. It's work. It should be paid.
The barber has no salary, the haircut is personal, there is no problem.
Organization and decision making is work too. Should it be paid? CEOs do that kind of work. Why is there a problem?

Organization and decision making is work too. Should it be paid? CEOs do that kind of work. Why is there a problem?

i believe you are talking to a market socialist of some sort. (pardon me, psylos, if you make a distinction between your views and those known as market socialism in the strictest sense)
they'd have positions similar to ceos most likely and they would be paid - just not as ridiculously because there wouldn't be the old boys club of capitalists who were all on each others' boards of directors.

The market.

A service is something. An haircut is something. It's work. It should be paid.
The barber has no salary, the haircut is personal, there is no problem.

How about this situation:

I cut hair. I save some money. I decide to start making chairs. I purchase lumber from the state-run lumber yard. I make and sell chairs. They are of high quality and people pay me well for them. So well in fact that I hire two other people to help me. I offer them more money than they make in the government factory - although I will earn a larger profit due to their labor.

Now I become wealthy, hire more people, and make even more chairs.

Would this be illegal?

I decide to start making chairs. I purchase lumber from the state-run lumber yard. I make and sell chairs. They are of high quality and people pay me well for them. So well in fact that I hire two other people to help me. I offer them more money than they make in the government factory - although I will earn a larger profit due to their labor.

Now I become wealthy, hire more people, and make even more chairs.

Would this be illegal?

Allow me to jump in....

Personally, I don't see why it should be. If you are willing and able to pay MORE than a socially managed firm, then have at it!! Of course, given that a healthy market socialism maintains the functional equivalent of full employment (a situation in which capitalism cannot function), I expect you will find the labor costs to be prohibitive.

I should mention that in the version of market socialism to which I subscribe, capitalist enterprise is by no means ruled out as useful in some sectors of the economy. Particularly, small enterprise of the craftsperson sort.

Allow me to jump in....

Personally, I don't see why it should be. If you are willing and able to pay MORE than a socially managed firm, then have at it!! Of course, given that a healthy market socialism maintains the functional equivalent of full employment (a situation in which capitalism cannot function), I expect you will find the labor costs to be prohibitive.

Full employment? Can people not be fired in a market socialism?

I am basing my success on two things:

There are no government overhead costs, I can offer my workers more money

This results in my ability to hire highly skilled workers and to offer a superior product

I should mention that in the version of market socialism to which I subscribe, capitalist enterprise is by no means ruled out as useful in some sectors of the economy. Particularly, small enterprise of the craftsperson sort.

Allow me to take this a step further -

My neighbor and his sons want to start making shoes (on their own, not as tools of the state). They do not have the capital to start up, and would rather not work and save towards this goal. Instead, they ask me for a loan (seeing as I have made a good amount of money from my chair making business). So I lend them the needed money. Of course, I am taking a big risk here, and ask that I be compensated 5% interest.

Now I have money coming in from my business as well as my investments.

Certainly no one will be allowed to stop me from doing this.

How about this situation:

I cut hair. I save some money. I decide to start making chairs. I purchase lumber from the state-run lumber yard. I make and sell chairs. They are of high quality and people pay me well for them. So well in fact that I hire two other people to help me. I offer them more money than they make in the government factory - although I will earn a larger profit due to their labor.

Now I become wealthy, hire more people, and make even more chairs.

Would this be illegal?

In anarcho-communism, it would never come up. In market socialism, no, but it would be pointless. The workers would receive the full product of their labor if they work in a worker controlled factory. You couldn't pay them more than what they get paid there because you'd never make a profit.

If they are working for the government, then it isn't really socialism because they take orders and receive a wage rather than sell the products of their labor. That is the key point here, not whether factories are privately or government owned, but whether workers manage them.

Full employment? Can people not be fired in a market socialism?

Of course they can. Moreover, a good manager WILL fire them if they aren't doing the job... and people can even be laid off to increase efficiency, at least to a point. Of course, labor will be REALLY strong -- but not invincible.

What I said was the "functional equivalent" of full employment. This is due to the "social wages" of very good social benefits.

Basically, everyone is guaranteed subsistence at a (democratically decided) minimum. Now, this is NOT AT ALL the same as the "everyone just gets the same thing" notion often attributed to socialism or communism. What it means is that a human being has a right to basic food, shelter, health care, etc.

Before I go on to explain how that works in an economic sense, let me say that people still have great incentive to work. Work still pays wages (very good ones, most likely) with which to buy things you want... and, "keeping up with the Joneses" is very much still a motivation.

Now, what level is the "minimum"? Precisely that level at which goods can be offered for free.

For FREE?? Yes. And it actually makes very good economic sense. Many goods, you see, have a demand structure which is to one degree or another "elastic," meaning demand increases as prices go down, and demand decreases as price goes up.

Other goods, however, have inelastic demand: People use the same amount of them no matter what the price is. In our current market, these TEND to be the things that are already really cheap.

Salt is the classic example. People are unlikely to go running out to the store to stock up on salt if it suddenly became free.

Other staple commodities, theoretically, also have inelastic demand. I say "theoretically" only because in our current system there are people with effectively NO demand -- no money -- so that if bread, for instance, were suddenly free demand WOULD go up. But, once elevated, it is likely to remain at a constant level (allowing for "cultural" variations due, for instance, to the Atkins diet). The same is true of, say, appendectomies.

Now, with constant demand, government can easily calculate the fixed cost of provide bread, salt, and other staples to EVERYONE. For FREE.

Back to the original argument: effective full employment. Effective in the sense that no one HAS to have a job in order to "get by." The "social safety net" will be "safe enough" to avoid exploitative wages. Capitalism, on the other hand, has always rested its authority on the likelihood that there will always be a set of workers desperate to jump on board for horrible wages whenever the existing set refuses to tow the line.



I am basing my success on two things:

There are no government overhead costs, I can offer my workers more money

This results in my ability to hire highly skilled workers and to offer a superior product

The only government overhead costs would be the cost of paying a manager -- which is presumably lower than the profit you would like to take.

But, like I said... If you can really manage better wages, AND still deliver a superior, or a cheaper product... then the true "socialist" realizes that that is a lot better for SOCIETY... and will let you do it. Socialism is by definition a flexible philosophy.

Allow me to take this a step further -

My neighbor and his sons want to start making shoes (on their own, not as tools of the state). They do not have the capital to start up, and would rather not work and save towards this goal. Instead, they ask me for a loan (seeing as I have made a good amount of money from my chair making business). So I lend them the needed money.

Why wouldn't the government lend them the money? (Or, indeed, just give it to them?) In a market socialism, if demand for shoes is high (and it must be high enough for them to believe they can live off of what they earn), then it is in the best interests of everyone to have... you guessed it, more firms making shoes.

Now, the government could just open its OWN firm... but presumably, the capital investment is relatively equal, so WHY NOT let them do it?



Of course, the shadow that lurks over all of this is an eternal WHAT IF??? I say it's not likely that you can develop a HUGE private firm and make a huge profit... but WHAT IF you did?

If a socialist state really needed to deal with that issue, all they need is an EXTREMELY progressive tax structure when it comes to profit and capital gains. In the upper brackets, your return on an increased profit would simply be equivalent to a government manager's return on the SAME increase in his firm's profit (which goes to the state, minus his "bonus"). Or didn't you think market socialism would provide incentives for managers?

The only government overhead costs would be the cost of paying a manager -- which is presumably lower than the profit you would like to take.

But, like I said... If you can really manage better wages, AND still deliver a superior, or a cheaper product... then the true "socialist" realizes that that is a lot better for SOCIETY... and will let you do it. Socialism is by definition a flexible philosophy.

I would have to argue that every government operation comes with a slew of overhead costs - not just one manager.

Why wouldn't the government lend them the money? (Or, indeed, just give it to them?)

Are you proposing a government body devoted to handing money out to everyone who wants to start a business? Where is the government getting the money to lend?


Now, the government could just open its OWN firm... but presumably, the capital investment is relatively equal, so WHY NOT let them do it?


Perhaps they they already have one. I certainly don't want the government having a monopoly on making shoes. Imagine that....



If a socialist state really needed to deal with that issue, all they need is an EXTREMELY progressive tax structure when it comes to profit and capital gains. In the upper brackets, your return on an increased profit would simply be equivalent to a government manager's return on the SAME increase in his firm's profit (which goes to the state, minus his "bonus"). Or didn't you think market socialism would provide incentives for managers?

It's not about incentives for managers - it's about my doing what I want with my money without government interference. What right to they have to tax the interest I earned from lending to my neighbor? Sounds like a plot to discourage private investors and keep the power in the hands of the state.

In anarcho-communism, it would never come up. In market socialism, no, but it would be pointless. The workers would receive the full product of their labor if they work in a worker controlled factory. You couldn't pay them more than what they get paid there because you'd never make a profit.

If they are working for the government, then it isn't really socialism because they take orders and receive a wage rather than sell the products of their labor. That is the key point here, not whether factories are privately or government owned, but whether workers manage them.

Ok, I'll alter it a bit, just for you....

My friends and I wish to start a company. We are highly skilled and make a great product. However, we could really use a piece of machinery that we can't afford. So we borrow money. Now we have the machine, manage ourselves, but must pay interest to the lenders. Are we exploiting ourselves?

Sounds like a plot to discourage private investors and keep the power in the hands of the state.

Yes. That is exactly what it is.

EDIT: The key word is discourage. No one is telling you what to do with your money... simply stating the terms under which you may do so. It is an allocative, not a prohibitive rule.

Since it is society that provides the money... and the market rules, for that matter... in which profit is even possible, there is absolutely no logical or moral argument against society's setting the terms of participation in the market, or the use of money. It is only out of its generous liberalism that it "discourages" rather than prohibiting capitalism.

Yes. That is exactly what it is.

Booo

I think there a faults in all the systems. However, if we take the good parts of each and throw away the useless parts.. we might actually have something the works. Who says we need to pick one or an other?
Capitalism has incentive working for it. It's the force that makes people work harder to get stuff that they want. If they are content with what they have then they can sit around most of the day and drink beer. (thats up to them)
Communism has social cohesion going for it. No one goes hungry, without a place to live (no matter how humble), or clothes on thier backs. [or that's how it's supposed to work, right?!] It's the counter balance of unbridled All For ME capitalism.
Socialism is the key to linking these two very different views. With socialism you can have the incentive to 'get ahead in the world', but it dosn't allow you to do it by whole sale raping and pilaging of whatever you can to make a buck.
SO.... would working a couple hours a day twords the communal good for food/clothing/shelter be so bad? The rest of the work day, be it 2 or 12 more hours (upto you), goes strait into your pocket. To ice the cake, a government with a socialist outlook would try to raise everybody's standard of living. This includes good health care and education. Also, having sustainable and renewable industry that would insure that our children's children would still have jobs logging and fishing because there would still be logs and fish for them to use!

Capitalism would work as you say, the lazy would fall behind and the diligent move ahead, if the world weren't interactive. If everybody lived the same scenario the ones with ability would probably be more succesful than the ones without.

However, there are more factors in the game of capitalism than ability and diligence.
First of all, there's material inheritence and family connections. Take Bush, for instance.
Second, there's the various random factors of the world (of course, family could be considered one of those), like whom you meet and such.
Third, [I'd really like a third point here as a filler but I can't come up with anything that's not part of the other two.]

What bothers me is that the so-called capitalists are against inheritence tax. A true capitalist would want to even out the advantages gained from being born in the right family. In fact, a true, rational capitalist would want every child raised by government institutions where everybody is treated equally.

I must say, I found your (the original) post intelligent and well written, although though I don't agree with it. You appear to keep an open mind which is more than you can say about most people I've seen in this forum (myself included, probably).

My friends and I wish to start a company. We are highly skilled and make a great product. However, we could really use a piece of machinery that we can't afford. So we borrow money. Now we have the machine, manage ourselves, but must pay interest to the lenders. Are we exploiting ourselves?

No, the lenders are exploiting you.

No, the lenders are exploiting you.

Do you even have a job?

Who is paying to build the factories?The state.

So there is no chance to invest in this system?
There is no trade of Capital. You can invest public money though, if your project is interesting enough for the state.

Organization and decision making is work too. Should it be paid? CEOs do that kind of work. Why is there a problem?
CEOs should be paid indeed.
There is a problem because there are several classes of citizens. The ones who have the capital and the proletariat.

i believe you are talking to a market socialist of some sort. (pardon me, psylos, if you make a distinction between your views and those known as market socialism in the strictest sense)
they'd have positions similar to ceos most likely and they would be paid - just not as ridiculously because there wouldn't be the old boys club of capitalists who were all on each others' boards of directors.
Good analysys. Indeed, there is no problem is the CEOs work they deserve pay. The problem arise when they receive pay from the capital in addition to their work's pay.

How about this situation:

I cut hair. I save some money. I decide to start making chairs. I purchase lumber from the state-run lumber yard. I make and sell chairs. They are of high quality and people pay me well for them. So well in fact that I hire two other people to help me. I offer them more money than they make in the government factory - although I will earn a larger profit due to their labor.

Now I become wealthy, hire more people, and make even more chairs.

Would this be illegal?
Sorry, no trade of slaves. The salary work is the monopoly of the state. If you want to hire people to make chairs, you have to ask the state to do it.

I should mention that in the version of market socialism to which I subscribe, capitalist enterprise is by no means ruled out as useful in some sectors of the economy. Particularly, small enterprise of the craftsperson sort.
I agree with you as a transitional status.

Full employment? Can people not be fired in a market socialism?Full employment is the goal.

Allow me to take this a step further -

My neighbor and his sons want to start making shoes (on their own, not as tools of the state). They do not have the capital to start up, and would rather not work and save towards this goal. Instead, they ask me for a loan (seeing as I have made a good amount of money from my chair making business). So I lend them the needed money. Of course, I am taking a big risk here, and ask that I be compensated 5% interest.

Now I have money coming in from my business as well as my investments.

Certainly no one will be allowed to stop me from doing this.No trade of capital. The banking industry is the monopoly of the state.

It's not about incentives for managers - it's about my doing what I want with my money without government interference. What right to they have to tax the interest I earned from lending to my neighbor? Sounds like a plot to discourage private investors and keep the power in the hands of the state.Discourage slavery is the goal.

Capitalism has incentive working for it. It's the force that makes people work harder to get stuff that they want. If they are content with what they have then they can sit around most of the day and drink beer. (thats up to them) That's the incentive of the market, not capitalism.

Communism has social cohesion going for it. No one goes hungry, without a place to live (no matter how humble), or clothes on thier backs. [or that's how it's supposed to work, right?!] It's the counter balance of unbridled All For ME capitalism.this is socialism, not communism.

Socialism is the key to linking these two very different views. With socialism you can have the incentive to 'get ahead in the world', but it dosn't allow you to do it by whole sale raping and pilaging of whatever you can to make a buck.I think this is communism.

SO.... would working a couple hours a day twords the communal good for food/clothing/shelter be so bad? The rest of the work day, be it 2 or 12 more hours (upto you), goes strait into your pocket. To ice the cake, a government with a socialist outlook would try to raise everybody's standard of living. This includes good health care and education. Also, having sustainable and renewable industry that would insure that our children's children would still have jobs logging and fishing because there would still be logs and fish for them to use!
And this is a transitional state.

Here are the first steps for moving toward communism as I see it.

1. nationalize inheritence.
2. make school mandatory (should be already the case in most modern political system)
3. install the monopoly of the state on the banking industry
4. nationalize major industries
5. outlaw private salary work
6. abolish state-sponsored marriage.

Jeez. Why has Nationstates NEVER weened off Commu V - Capital ? Because everyone wants to present their ideas to the community because you've spent time doing an essay about it. Fair enough, but not when Each and every other is exactly the same Its a valid point, except you must understand the theory is actually you get paid for your work, not pay is divided. Also,some theories divide pay between how well off you are. It doesn't mean to say that in a community one person can slack off and still get rewarded.

Jeez. Why has Nationstates NEVER weened off Commu V - Capital ? Because everyone wants to present their ideas to the community because you've spent time doing an essay about it. Fair enough, but not when Each and every other is exactly the same Its a valid point, except you must understand the theory is actually you get paid for your work, not pay is divided. Also,some theories divide pay between how well off you are. It doesn't mean to say that in a community one person can slack off and still get rewarded.
Not every argument is the same. I personally have never seen the argument i described in my first post.

I am willing to agree that there are circumstances in which humans are very lazy but i genuinely feel that this is a result of the alienation of people from the products of their labour. Obviously you cannot just take contemporary society and change the rules to install a communist system because people are socialized into behaving in certain ways - ie laziness when the product of ones labour is owned by an anonymous corporation. Society can change however and socialism will be widespread when people realise that cooperation is a better motive than greed.


When in history have we seen a miracle like that?

That is a comfy daydream to keep from panic like Titannic.

We got about a Billion using 80%, fish forest life deleted, freaky weather and extremists on powerspots, this boat is speeding up for disaster.

Only through pain and death schall we be awakened.

When in history have we seen a miracle like that?

That is a comfy daydream to keep from panic like Titannic.

We got about a Billion using 80%, fish forest life deleted, freaky weather and extremists on powerspots, this boat is speeding up for disaster.

Only through pain and death schall we be awakened.

And whose fault is that? Capitalists whose factories pollute and whose profit motive makes them ignore the environment.

And whose fault is that? Capitalists whose factories pollute and whose profit motive makes them ignore the environment.
You say that, but what makes you sure that the state owned factories would not pollute? Pollution rates do not correspond to the type of government or economics a nation has, pollution is entirely different. And the world is not so bad as you and the previous poster say it is

You say that, but what makes you sure that the state owned factories would not pollute? Pollution rates do not correspond to the type of government or economics a nation has, pollution is entirely different. And the world is not so bad as you and the previous poster say it is

For one thing, I don't advocate state-owned factories. I'm an anarcho-communist, not a state capitalist (often mistakenly called a state socialist). Also, I tend to be skeptical of the necessity of factories, anyway.

As I recall didn't some of the first pilgrims to america attempt to set up a commune (there was no communist) system when they first arrived?

As I recall it was a grand failure - and these were people highly motivated to see it work. When they innitiated a free market approach things worked much better.

It is much the same reason why there are no communes today. There is nothing to stop anyone from setting up a commune today and living their ideals, however veryfew have the balls to actually do it - they'd just rather sit around telling everyone else to do it.

As I recall didn't some of the first pilgrims to america attempt to set up a commune (there was no communist) system when they first arrived?

As I recall it was a grand failure - and these were people highly motivated to see it work. When they innitiated a free market approach things worked much better.

I've never heard this. Keep in mind that there are numerous possible factors in why it failed even if it did happen. Perhaps it was too authoritarian, like Zoar or many other communes.

It is much the same reason why there are no communes today. There is nothing to stop anyone from setting up a commune today and living their ideals, however veryfew have the balls to actually do it - they'd just rather sit around telling everyone else to do it.

Actually, that isn't true. There are communes around today and they do work. Some have been around for 40 years: thefec.org (http://thefec.org)

For one thing, I don't advocate state-owned factories. I'm an anarcho-communist, not a state capitalist (often mistakenly called a state socialist). Also, I tend to be skeptical of the necessity of factories, anyway.
So how are goods produced?

Actually, that isn't true. There are communes around today and they do work. Some have been around for 40 years: thefec.org (http://thefec.org)

I have heard about that. It seems many of those communes are populated by hippies.

I've never heard this. Keep in mind that there are numerous possible factors in why it failed even if it did happen. Perhaps it was too authoritarian, like Zoar or many other communes.



Actually, that isn't true. There are communes around today and they do work. Some have been around for 40 years: thefec.org (http://thefec.org)
I stand corrected - my bad - there are communes around today. Getting late and bleary-eyed.

Though there are a few it would be difficult to call them a resounding success.

McCarthy had theright idea - throw all the commies in jail - that is, afterall, what the end result of communism would be for everyone else.

Free room +board, work is not manditory, free health care, and you get what you need whenever you need it (and someone to decide for you what and when that is!). Communist nirvana!
(though they still need cash and goods from capitalism to operate)

As far as the pilgrims goes I'm uncertain as to the credibility myself - I hoped someone else may be familiar with it. I could look it up, but it is getting late...

Does a factory that you own, that you built with your own money, with your money earned from your blood, sweat, and tears, does that factory truly belong to all the people, or does it belong to the person/people who built it? Does it belong to the person who pays the workers, bought the machinery, keeps it in working order, and runs it, or does it belong to the unemployed homeless man sitting on the street outside the factory, begging for coins and using his begging money to buy whiskey?

If you believe that a factory belongs to all the people, even the people who had nothing to do with it, then we cannot debate each other, we can just resolve that we are on different moral platforms.

First, you are assuming that the owner actually earned his money through blood, sweat, and tears. He, or she, could have just as well earned through crime, coercion, swindling, or other dubious means.
Second, even if they did earn it honestly, you seem to assume that their blood, sweat, and tears is somehow more valuable than that of their employees. If this should be the determining factor as to who owns the factory, shouldn't the employees as well be at least part owners?

So how are goods produced?

Factories are a recent invention. They certainly didn't exist in ancient times and people back then had what they needed. I don't actually think it's practical to abolish them, but am critical of them.

I have heard about that. It seems many of those communes are populated by hippies.

If they have lasted for 30+ years, then why would that matter?

Factories are a recent invention. They certainly didn't exist in ancient times and people back then had what they needed. I don't actually think it's practical to abolish them, but am critical of them.
OK. I can start to understand.



If they have lasted for 30+ years, then why would that matter?
It does not matter, I understand they have lasted, and in certain situations, communes can succeed. There is my point also, in Capitalistic society, communes and co-ops are options, in a Communistic society, they are the only choice.

Also, I enjoy making fun of hippies :)

Strockbrokers definitely do not have a "leach" way of life. Trying to predict the economy is like trying to sprint on your big toe alone. Their work is hard.

Whether what they do is hard or not isn't the issue- after all, I could say that solving a rubic's cube is hard. The question is whether what they do is labor, i.e., does it actually produce something?

Whether what they do is hard or not isn't the issue- after all, I could say that solving a rubic's cube is hard. The question is whether what they do is labor, i.e., does it actually produce something?


Yes, when a municipality wants to raise money to build a bridge, water-treatment plant, or whatever, they issue Municipal bonds. Who do you think handles that complicated task?

When a company wants to build a new factory or upgrade their existing one they issue bonds, who do you think handles that task?

When a private company wants to raise capital and grow who do you think takes them public?

When a investor finds they have all of their hard-earned money tied up in one company, what do they do to reduce their risks? Who handles it?

When a retiree is given a choice between a lump-sum payout or a lifetime pension, who do they go to to determine the best option?

When a recent widow discovers that her husband's pension had no survivor benefit where does she go for help?

There is plenty more examples i've not listed. The answer to all of these would be stockbrokers, investment bankers, financial planners or people like them.

Yes, when a municipality wants to raise money to build a bridge, water-treatment plant, or whatever, they issue Municipal bonds. Who do you think handles that complicated task?

When a company wants to build a new factory or upgrade their existing one they issue bonds, who do you think handles that task?

When a private company wants to raise capital and grow who do you think takes them public?

When a investor finds they have all of their hard-earned money tied up in one company, what do they do to reduce their risks? Who handles it?

When a retiree is given a choice between a lump-sum payout or a lifetime pension, who do they go to to determine the best option?

When a recent widow discovers that her husband's pension had no survivor benefit where does she go for help?

There is plenty more examples i've not listed. The answer to all of these would be stockbrokers, investment bankers, financial planners or people like them.

Although, given the track record of such people, you'd be as well asking astrologers, five-year-olds, and blindfolded guys with pins. When the market is going up, professional financial advice tends to be good. When it's going down, it tends to be bad. Does this maybe suggest anything to anybody?

For one thing, I don't advocate state-owned factories. I'm an anarcho-communist, not a state capitalist (often mistakenly called a state socialist). Also, I tend to be skeptical of the necessity of factories, anyway.

Bit of a bugger if we want computers then isn't it?

Although, given the track record of such people, you'd be as well asking astrologers, five-year-olds, and blindfolded guys with pins. When the market is going up, professional financial advice tends to be good. When it's going down, it tends to be bad. Does this maybe suggest anything to anybody?
Your point is disjointed and unconnected to my post. The direction of the market has very little to do with most of my post.

If you want quality financial advice this is not the place for it. Financial Advisors are like car mechanics, some are good, some are horrid, and most are just barely competent. Just remember, free advice is usually worth the price.