how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
4418 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
4 edits | reply to AnonymousRepublican
Re: I disagree First off, Marx had several inclinations, depending on which of his works you go by. In some writings, Marx presents two stages before communism. In most other writings, he presents three. In a handful of speeches and shorter documents, he argues for even more stages before the implementation of communism.
"But those revolutions will be made by the majority. No revolution can be made by a party, But By a Nation"
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that power (an abstract concept) is centralized. Do you mean means of production? If so, how do you propose that occur? I'm sure Marx would've liked to know how one body can tangibly govern something it cannot see. That is what supervision was for. Supervision was not meant to mean the kind of "supervision" that was common in Stalinist Russia or late-Maoist China. Do you think Marx thought this centralization should occur democratically? Or was it to be a small group in control of the workers (i.e. exactly what the world is now, but with different bosses)? I'd say above all, Marx was democratic in his propositions of any sort of "central control" as the above quote implies, and the following post attempts to also connote.
In the Manifesto, Marx also admits that "materialist history," commonly construed to mean "what has historically been made to mean human nature," must be altered for his utopia to work.
The Manifesto is credited for being the root of Marxist philosophy. That is not the same thing, at least generally in the academic world, as Marxian economics.
Marx was not an idealist in everything he wrote, and the phase you are describing in which power is centralized (often called socialism) did not entail complete state control or ownership over means of production, but means of production owned by workers, supervised by officials. These supervisors were to be picked by workers and the adoption of the system was to be a democratic movement in of itself ... "State aid and credit for industrial societies, under democratic direction (the majority of humans not being "owners" but rather "workers," Marx banked that if given the opportunity, the majority of people on earth would side with his ideas, not the converse ... Marx discussed "self education" and believed that, eventually, citizens of the world would find it their own duty to demand pay equal to their work in the face of an owner's profit)." Capital, as I mentioned is not done away with altogether initially, taxation does occur and people are still paid wages under an LTV system, before land redistribution actually occurs. Now, depending on what you read by the fellow, the following step is either accomplished by peaceful transition away from wages and the transitional government, as the human mindset changes with socialization (self education is completed) or a giant revolution period in which workers deseat (through uprise) the supervisors/government officials. It some writings, he expresses concern about the socialization process' ability to suppress the seemingly naturally competitive inclination of people.
"What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; and which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birth-marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society - after the deductions have been made, exactly what he contributes to it. What he has contributed to it is his individual quantum of labour"
However, now, with media as prevalent as it is, it seems entirely possibly that socialization could occur even quicker than Marx had dreamed of.
I am not a communist. I have read a fair share of Marx and a fair share more of Ricardo. I do believe in an LTV theory of economics. I think the late stages of the socialization process are a frightening thought as I wouldn't want governments, or frankly, anyone other than a host of hundreds of thousands of individuals, controlling the mass media (TV, radio, and most importantly, Internet). | |
 9143930615,000 Watts of Bass Power
join:2002-10-16
New Milford, CT | reply to nasadude
Re: don't bet on it This comes a little to late for the FM broadcast industry. Too bad all the spectrum has been filled with 80-90 drop-ins and consolodation has inflated station prices to absurd levels. Repealing the Act now wouldn't fix the mess that is radio. Maybe for the telecomms it's a different story.
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: »www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
'»www.mwcomms.com/auctions.htm
'»www.mwcomms.com
'»www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
| | |
|
 calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | reply to bmn
Re: I disagree Oh, yeah. The wonderful part about where "the state would cease to be necessary...." What horsesh!t. How naive to believe that no control is necessary and that all human beings will act only out of the goodness of a proper heart. Sheesh. (And I wasn't talking about socialism. I was quoting the definition of communism given by broadander. If you're going to jump into the middle of a discussion, understand it first.)
OK, so what else besides government do you think will stop competition? "Communal pressure" or some other such thuggery? Face it--whatever entity/force/group stops competition is a form of government--it controls people. Whether or not you call it a "government" doesn't change what it does or how it works.
And does captialism have flaws? Sure. It was some of those (such as the ability of large entities to dominate markets) that started this discussion. But you need to realize that in a capitalist system, we can have these discussions. In a communist system, competitive ideas, like competitive companies, are forbidden.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | reply to sporkme
said by sporkme:If there were no TA '96, I doubt you'd be seeing DSL right now. Amen to that. Who recalls ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network)? It was a switch-based digital service--i.e., if you wanted to access Amazon's website, you'd "dial" their phone number, and then be able to communicate with them in digital fashion.
While the Baby Bells were smart enough to see the digital revolution coming, the only way they could see to provision it was a Bell-centric "switched" model. ISDN was universally ridiculed for years as the network "I Still Don't Need."
Only competition provided us with an alternative.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | reply to KrK
You know, KrK, I have to disagree with your signature.
Kennard was the FCC chair that the Baby Bells had Clinton install after they forced Reed Hundt out. Hundt was a real chair--Kennard started the "non-enforcement" policy of the FCC that let the ILECs get away with CLEC murder. The subsequent FCC chairs have only expanded on his work.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | reply to calvoiper
said by calvoiper:Oh, yeah. The wonderful part about where "the state would cease to be necessary...." What horsesh!t. How naive to believe that no control is necessary and that all human beings will act only out of the goodness of a proper heart. Sheesh. Actually, you don't have to lecture me on the statement that people won't act in any interest but their own... One need go any further than the likes of people like Ken Lay or a politico in DC.
However, you stated that under communism the government would be the sole controller of capital and the lives of the people and that people are paid via taxes...
I was pointing out that you statement is inconsistent with Marx and the concept of communism he outlined and was much more consistent with socialism, where there is strict government control.
(And I wasn't talking about socialism. I was quoting the definition of communism given by broadander. If you're going to jump into the middle of a discussion, understand it first.) If you are going to say something pointed, make sure it applies. I was well aware of the context of this discussion. Thanks. 
OK, so what else besides government do you think will stop competition? "Communal pressure" or some other such thuggery? Face it--whatever entity/force/group stops competition is a form of government--it controls people. Whether or not you call it a "government" doesn't change what it does or how it works. Utterly false... Hypothetical case (and basic at that):
Jack and John each own blacksmith shops. Jack wants to eliminate John from the marketplace, so by using his connections with others in the marketplace, he is able to deny John raw materials. After weeks of not having access to materials, John goes out of business. Jack has successfully stopped the competition. Months later, Al wants to enter the blacksmith business, but Jack, after talking with his friends and suppliers, is able to prevent the entrance of Al into the market.
In the above exameple, there is no form of government involved.
In fact, situations like the above happened in the past (and probably still do) and prompted the government to pass laws to prevent such activities...
To say that the only way to stop competition is via government is to be myopic. Individuals and companies can and do have the ability to exert pressure in the market to stop the competition in its tracks and kill it.
And does captialism have flaws? Sure. It was some of those (such as the ability of large entities to dominate markets) that started this discussion. But you need to realize that in a capitalist system, we can have these discussions. In a communist system, competitive ideas, like competitive companies, are forbidden. Competitive ideas are not forbidden under an economic system like communism and there is no way, with any certainty to say that would be the case, because no communist system has ever existed...
In fact, competitive ideas (what way is better to produce X, etc.) would have to be entertained in order to maintain an efficient system of production for example.
With that said, I'm not advocating communism, merely pointing out statements that I think aren't totally on the mark... Communism in its ideal form is totally unattainable, but so is the ideal form of capitalism... | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | reply to mb
Re: don't bet on it said by mb:Historically, deregulation has been a failure from the consumer's perspective, but it has been the greatest thing since canned beer for the corporate side. Simply not true for airlines. Today, whole families of various economic classes fly as a matter of routine. Back in the '70's, when the CAB regulated routes and prices, flying was too expensive for anyone except the rich and those travelling on business expense accounts.
Also not true for long distance phone service. In the '70's, folks often paid as much as $0.35 per minute for long distance--about $1.00 per minute in today's dollars, adjusted for inflation. Today, basic long distance is either flat rate or just a few pennies a minute.
In both industries, the introduction of competition has had adverse effects on some corporate providers, including bankruptcy. Such is the expected nature of a thriving competitive industry--not all players win. The faint of heart should not play.
Yeah, there have been some failures, notably in the electric industry. But as I've said before, recall what Alfred Kahn said: "Deregulation does not mean that you fire the policeman."
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
approval from:
tschmidt 
| reply to wifi4milez
Re: I disagree said by "wifi4milez":
Capitalism is also contrasted with feudalism, where land may be privately operated, but is owned by the state and held in fee.
Interestingly, we DO seem to be headed straight into an era of feudalism and technological slavery, driven by our dot-com overlords and their corrupt cronies in gov't.
I mean, if private ownership of land doesn't exist or is forbidden - right there, we don't have capitalism, we have feudalism. And if we aren't allowed to own our technological "means of production" (in an information-based society / market), then we are mere serfs, working the plantations that are solely owned by the largest technological (software) corporations. Are we truely all just slaves to Microsoft?!?!?! | |
9143930615,000 Watts of Bass Power
join:2002-10-16
New Milford, CT | said by MS is piracy: said by "wifi4milez":
Capitalism is also contrasted with feudalism, where land may be privately operated, but is owned by the state and held in fee.
Interestingly, we DO seem to be headed straight into an era of feudalism and technological slavery, driven by our dot-com overlords and their corrupt cronies in gov't. I mean, if private ownership of land doesn't exist or is forbidden - right there, we don't have capitalism, we have feudalism. And if we aren't allowed to own our technological "means of production" (in an information-based society / market), then we are mere serfs, working the plantations that are solely owned by the largest technological (software) corporations. Are we truely all just slaves to Microsoft?!?!?! This is already the case in Amerika!
You think you own your home? WRONG!!
The tax collector can sell it for unpaid back taxes and it's 'legal' under the corrupt system of government we have here in Amerika. Fascism is alive and well and the ugly monster is coming out of its closet, but it's too late, as the military power of the government exceeds the firepower of the citizen to demand redress or overthrow as outlined in the US Constitution.
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: »www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
'»www.mwcomms.com/auctions.htm
'»www.mwcomms.com
'»www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
| |
jytr
join:2005-02-03
Cliffwood, NJ | reply to LegoPower77
Not true.
Once a corporation has established itself in the free market, without regulation, it will have no incentive to innovate or improve services or products. Instead, a corporation will increase prices and equate innovation with cost cutting, thus producing poorer quality products and services.
Look carefully at corporations, these are the entities that have crafted laws that work to their own advantage. The government is merely an entity to provide legal enforcement of those laws.
Stop blaming government for interfering, this is what corporations what you to do, blame government. Because it keeps attention off of the corporate entity.
Peace
| |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | reply to bmn
said by bmn:However, you stated that under communism the government would be the sole controller of capital and the lives of the people and that people are paid via taxes... Simply and completely dead wrong. "wifi4milez" said that, I didn't.
And we were talking about communism, right? So what prevents competition in a communist system other than a governmental unit? (Yes, there are other ways in a capitalist system, as you pointed out--and as I had earlier mentioned regarding the threat of monopoly--but what prevents competition destructive to the communist model in a communist system?)
said by bmn:Competitive ideas are not forbidden under an economic system like communism and there is no way, with any certainty to say that would be the case, because no communist system has ever existed... Ah, great, the old "You can't blame communism for the failures experienced by those entities that have tried it...." More HS.
Yes, "ideal" communism and "ideal" capitalism may both be unattainable, largely because of human shortcomings. Unquestionably, however, capitalism does a better job of working in "less than ideal" situations, and with proper antitrust and similar controls, even uses the human frailties to spur the economy.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
3 edits | said by calvoiper:said by bmn:However, you stated that under communism the government would be the sole controller of capital and the lives of the people and that people are paid via taxes... Simply and completely dead wrong. "wifi4milez" said that, I didn't. From your post above. quoted exactly as YOU stated it...
said by calvoiper:Yeah, sure. The supervisors and workers are paid by TAXES. Who collects taxes? The government, for crying out loud. And you don't think that the entity that funds a person's paycheck controls that person's business decisions? Face it--the government runs the business, plain and simple. You said it, NOT wifi4milez.
And we were talking about communism, right? So what prevents competition in a communist system other than a governmental unit? Lack of necessity... If there is one provider that can meet the needs of the people taking their goods, there is no need for competition... Competition exists only when there is a need for it.
Ah, great, the old "You can't blame communism for the failures experienced by those entities that have tried it...." More HS. Actually, its not horseshit... Your statement is because it clearly illustrates you don't understand anything about the concepts of Marx and communism... The failures were brought about by corruption and mismanagement... Could they have had a "perfect or ideal" communist system ? No, but that's not a failure of the ideal, but a failure of people. All economic theories, from capitalism and feudalism to socialism and communism require certain factors to be present and in balance... Anyone with even a cursory life experience will know that those factors are never always present or in the perfect balance for those theories to work out...
And seriously, if the failure to acheive "ideal" communism means communism is a failure, then the failure to acheive "ideal" capitalism means that capitalism is a failure...
Yes, "ideal" communism and "ideal" capitalism may both be unattainable, largely because of human shortcomings. Unquestionably, however, capitalism does a better job of working in "less than ideal" situations, and with proper antitrust and similar controls, even uses the human frailties to spur the economy. Correct, "capitalism" so far has worked well, until something better comes along, whatever that might be... | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | At the end, you hit my main point--while imperfect capitalism seems to be the best working system we've got, imperfect communism has seemed to be a total and abysmal failure--from Cuba through the eastern bloc and the former USSR to North Korea.
I did say that in communism the government (or whatever "de facto state" runs things) ends up controlling all business, I didn't state it quite the way you quoted, and I thought you were tagging me with a statement I didn't make but wifi4milez had. I thought the difference significant because I still didn't see what you thought stops competition. The concept that all needs are met by central planning and that there is no need (I would say "market demand") for alternatives is so bizarre I would never have dreamed that you would posit it--but you have.
For me the possibility of an entire population happily taking whatever the system spewed out for them is eerily like a visit to North Korea.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | said by calvoiper:At the end, you hit my main point--while imperfect capitalism seems to be the best working system we've got, imperfect communism has seemed to be a total and abysmal failure--from Cuba through the eastern bloc and the former USSR to North Korea. That's because we essentially agree on that point...
The problem with the concept of communism is that for it to work, you have to have it perfect. Needless to so, perfection is, well, not bloody likely.
I did say that in communism the government (or whatever "de facto state" runs things) ends up controlling all business, I didn't state it quite the way you quoted, and I thought you were tagging me with a statement I didn't make but wifi4milez had. I thought the difference significant because I still didn't see what you thought stops competition. I did give one example, but I see what you mean here.
The concept that all needs are met by central planning and that there is no need (I would say "market demand") for alternatives is so bizarre I would never have dreamed that you would posit it--but you have. Remember, this is all in theory... If one supplier can somehow meet the needs of everyone, in theory then, you really would not need competition, no ? The problem is that you have to have perfect price-point matching (assuming money exists) and perfect customer satisfaction (like hell that will happen).
Remember, this is all academic and could get a WHOLE lot more complicated... For example, the discussion of small scale communism versus large scale communism starts to complicate things...
But this discussion illustrates the problem with theory... Theory assume certain things are present.
For me the possibility of an entire population happily taking whatever the system spewed out for them is eerily like a visit to North Korea. See above... It would never happen or requires a populace where the amjority supports such an existence. | |
 LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA
1 edit | reply to bmn
I agree, wholeheartedly. The point of the Union of States, or a federal system is to have a labratory of states. If you ax me, I think the anti-federalists should have won the debate.
Go back to the Articles of Confederation! | |
LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA
3 edits | reply to calvoiper
said by calvoiper:You know, KrK, I have to disagree with your signature. Oh no, no no. It's interesting, I've seen enough of KrK's posts to think of him as to the left (I'm not trying to be pejorative here  ), the funny thing is, regardless of who said it, what is said, is right-on. Look at it:
said by KrK:"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." That's exactly the point I try to make all these times. So many in these pages have a preternatural believe that the corporations are evil personified (e.g., these posts in these very pages).
I just don't understand how some regulatory board and/or a government agency are supposed to somehow not be corrupt. And this story is so apropos, it's as if the gods have opened the clouds and handed it to me on a ray of light.
Just is in the recent Supreme Court Emmons decision, a private interest gamed the political system to harm its . . . obstacles (? I don’t know what you call a homeowner who’s lived in the same house for 40 years, certainly not a competitor).
This cuts to the heart of the matter: when we have regulatory controls and government mandates, it make natural sense that self-interested people will do whatever they can. That’s precisely why America was set up to be a representative republic of limited government. The less government, the less incentive self-interested eeevil people (often acting through their intermediaries, corporations) will have to influence governance.
I invite one and all to join in the lively discussion here, if they wish. KrK, I’d love to see what you have to say  .
Economic Nobel Laureate Thomas Sowell (we all know what "leftists" the Nobel committee is, man) mentioned in one of his recent Random Thoughts columns:
Some ideas seem so plausible that they can fail nine times in a row and still be believed the tenth time. Other ideas seem so implausible that they can succeed nine times in a row and still not be believed the tenth time. Government controls in the economy are among the first kinds of ideas and the operation of a free market is among the second kinds of ideas. --
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." —Ronald Reagan
It's right, it's free. | |
LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | reply to jytr
Consider yourself schooled. (What does Abecedarian mean, anyway?) | |
LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | reply to bmn
And badmagicnumber, wrong from another angle.
I suspect you believe predatory practices and other supposed malfeasance is an effective means to prohibit competition. And of course, monopolies are the scourge.
However, if you look at what actually happens. E.g., (I forget specifics), but in the early part of last century, a pharmaceutical company engaged in predatory practices. But what happened? A German company bought all the under-priced pills and then when the American company's loss was maximized (cause that's what you do when you under price a good, the firm takes a loss), the German company moved in to take up the slack in supply. In other words, the American company couldn't then raise prices and take windfall profit.
There are other examples, check out The Myth of the Robber Barons By Burton Folsom.
I know it's an old post, Bad, but take a look at: »Re: My response to Martin's op-ed if you wish.
--
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." —Ronald Reagan
It's right, it's free. | |
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | said by LegoPower77:And badmagicnumber, wrong from another angle. I suspect you believe predatory practices and other supposed malfeasance is an effective means to prohibit competition. And of course, monopolies are the scourge. I only say that predatory practices and other malfeasance are effective because in the past, they have demostrated to be so...
As for monopolies being bad... Typically they are because competition leads to improvements in products and lower prices much faster than monopolies are naturally inclined to grant on their own...
The question now, however, is if predatory practices prove to be effective... Probably not, but there is one main reason. The current economy is a commodity economy, which is why the situation outlined below works. Predatory practices work best when you can't easily mass produce products.
However, if you look at what actually happens. E.g., (I forget specifics), but in the early part of last century, a pharmaceutical company engaged in predatory practices. But what happened? A German company bought all the under-priced pills and then when the American company's loss was maximized (cause that's what you do when you under price a good, the firm takes a loss), the German company moved in to take up the slack in supply. In other words, the American company couldn't then raise prices and take windfall profit. As I said, absolutely possible under an economy of commodities...
Look earlier, however, to the system of guilds and their ability to stop and prevent competition... | |
LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | Guilds were quasi-governmental boards that erected barriers to entry while the rulers turned a blind eye or even helped out. Why is it that today's unions are always trying to get the government to "do something" about something? Who is the loudest voice for increasing the minimum wage, for example?
--
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." —Ronald Reagan
It's right, it's free. | |
|
