What Economic System?

[ALiberalModerate]

Libertarian_knight made an excellent point. Labor has no real value, only its results. The stronger economic system is the the one that gets the most production with the least amount of labor. Now I know that a lot of the communists after reading that statement are probably thinking that means that capitalism is always going to result in cheap labor and exploitation. However, that is typically not the case. For example, in the last century, automation reduced the need for large amounts of manual labor in farming and the manufacturing of goods. This did not result in a lower standard of living because many labors were no longer needed, but rather resulted in those labors (resources) being freed up in one sector of the economy to work in other more skilled sectors. Yes, since the early 80s, the incomes of the very rich have grown at a much higher pace than the incomes of the middle class. However, this has much less to do with increases in production than it has to do with the decline of labor unions, corporate welfare and tax breaks, and the flattening of the progressive taxation system.

Now, that said, in a civilized a just society, there must be a safety net that shields the unfortunate members of that society who are willing to work but are unable to from living in squalor. We could do better in this regard in some ways in America, but we do have some safety nets in place like the Welfare System, Medicaid, Public Housing, and other social programs. However, the stronger the safety net a nation provides for its citizens, the stronger the economy must be to support it. We have to remember that exorbitantly high taxes and excessive redistribution of wealth (I am referring to pure socialism, not programs like the New Deal programs and the Great Society programs) are a massive drag on production and consumption in an economy. We have a moral responsibility to provide a safety net for the less fortunate in our society, but we have economic realities that constrain how much we can do.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Libertarian_knight made an excellent point. Labor has no real value, only its results. The stronger economic system is the the one that gets the most production with the least amount of labor. Now I know that a lot of the communists after reading that statement are probably thinking that means that capitalism is always going to result in cheap labor and exploitation. However, that is typically not the case. For example, in the last century, automation reduced the need for large amounts of manual labor in farming and the manufacturing of goods. This did not result in a lower standard of living because many labors were no longer needed, but rather resulted in those labors (resources) being freed up in one sector of the economy to work in other more skilled sectors. Yes, since the early 80s, the incomes of the very rich have grown at a much higher pace than the incomes of the middle class. However, this has much less to do with increases in production than it has to do with the decline of labor unions, corporate welfare and tax breaks, and the flattening of the progressive taxation system.

Now, that said, in a civilized a just society, there must be a safety net that shields the unfortunate members of that society who are willing to work but are unable to from living in squalor. We could do better in this regard in some ways in America, but we do have some safety nets in place like the Welfare System, Medicaid, Public Housing, and other social programs. However, the stronger the safety net a nation provides for its citizens, the stronger the economy must be to support it. We have to remember that exorbitantly high taxes and excessive redistribution of wealth (I am referring to pure socialism, not programs like the New Deal programs and the Great Society programs) are a massive drag on production and consumption in an economy. We have a moral responsibility to provide a safety net for the less fortunate in our society, but we have economic realities that constrain how much we can do.

Why are you not talking about the new deal? What you said certainly applies to the new deal.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Why are you not talking about the new deal? What you said certainly applies to the new deal.

I should have worded it differently. What I meant though was that excessive taxation like what is found under socialist societies is a major drag on economic growth, and thus the economy cannot continue to support the vast social programs in those nations. To ward off comparisons from revisionist far right wingers, I pointed out that the New Deal programs and Great Society programs did not fit into that category of crippling taxation. During the 40s, 50s, and 60s, we had massive economic growth despite those programs. However, at some point taxation can grow to a level where taxation is a massive drag on growth and production. I don’t think one could make a credible argument at all though that we are at that point in America or have been in our history. Which is why I say that on balance we have one of the best economic and social systems in the world. We have the world’s strongest economy and we provide a safety net for our less fortunate. Yes there is room for improvement in some areas, but on balance, no system is better than ours, especially for a nation of our size.

 

[anomaly]

How do you maintain such a system without tyranny? For example, we could vote in Communist candidates right now in this nation, yet people don’t. However, for the sake of argument, say they did in the next election and the Communist party swept both Houses of Congress and the Whitehouse. Even if that happened, without some sort of totalitarianism, there is nothing to suggest that the citizens would not vote them out four years later.

Communism is a form of anarchism. therefore, government would be no obstacle. Without this controling object, people will work for their own survival.

Moreover, how do you maintain the communes without some sort of totalitarianism? For example, if cost of living were not an issue, what would prevent large numbers of people who work in say North Dakota communes from trying to move down to Florida and work in their communes? Everybody couldn’t live in the nice places to live so how would you compel people to live in the more undesirable places and do the more undesirable jobs?

One thing will be basic social ocntacts. Now, it is unreasonable to think that everyone in ND would simply decide to get up and go to FL. This means that limited amounts of people would actually go to FL. Besides, you're talking about mass communism here. The beginning of communism will be individual, self-sufficient communes popping up. As time goes by, more communes willl ikely appear, and, slowly, we'll see communism take shape. This means that it will be a communal effort to set up each commune, so why, again, would the community just want to leave? It seems illogical. As for the more undesirable jobs, there are two possibilities. One, the people would work collectively, or on the basis of a schedule, for these jobs. If they are neccesary to the people's survival, the jobs obviously must be done, and we can only assume that people would rather do 'undesirable' jobs than die. Two, some communists say that technology can assume some of these, even most, undesirable jobs.

I would also submit that Communism without Totalitarianism would over time naturally move back towards Capitalism. For example, say the communes in Missouri far out produced the communes in Kansas. It would make sense that at some point the Missouri communes would want a bigger slice of the pie so to speak for their efforts and takes steps to start directly competing with lower producing communes. Also, without totalitarianism how does one deal with laziness. If you take 5 workers, one will be an extremely hard worker, three will work about like anyone else would, and one will take every opportunity to do nothing. How do you compel the last one to produce like the others do? How do you keep the really hard working ones from not wanting more for their efforts and selling services or goods to the lazy one? My mother-in-law’s 18 year old stepson’s only responsibility in life is to mow the yard once a week (even less during droughts) yet he pays a kid down the street 20 dollars a week to do it. Would Communism on its own compel him to work and be a contributing member of society, or would he and others like him just find ways to take advantage of the system?

I think that socialism has the danger of going back to capitalism, not communism. Communsim is so radically different from capitalism that regression seems extremely unlikely.

As for 'lazy ones' and 'hard working ones', I think some form of punishment for this laziness will be decided in each commune. The people, to ensure their own survival, must make sure that the lazy are made to work just like everyone else. Also, modeling may be of use as well. As you mention, few will enjoy the labor and work extremely hard, and most will simply 'do their duty'. This leaves a small percentage of 'lazy' people. That means that these lazy people will be able to see their peers hard at work, and often will receive criticism and, as mentioned, punishment communally, for not doing their duty. Either way, the lazy ones will be dealt with.

 

[Comrade Brian]

This punishment would not be torturings

 

[LaMidRighter]

Communism is a form of anarchism. therefore, government would be no obstacle. Without this controling object, people will work for their own survival.

Or, in as in any state of Anarchy, the stronger and least honest will simply prey on the weaker of that society, this is why government was deemed necessary in the first place, but if you like the concept of just trusting that all people will behave on their own, be my guest.

One thing will be basic social ocntacts. Now, it is unreasonable to think that everyone in ND would simply decide to get up and go to FL. This means that limited amounts of people would actually go to FL. Besides, you're talking about mass communism here. The beginning of communism will be individual, self-sufficient communes popping up.

You're dreaming, as soon as the area can't naturally provide for the people anymore, there will be a mass exodus, it always has happened historically(nomadic cultures are a perfect examle)

As time goes by, more communes willl ikely appear, and, slowly, we'll see communism take shape. This means that it will be a communal effort to set up each commune, so why, again, would the community just want to leave? It seems illogical.

Re-read the above for the answer.

As for the more undesirable jobs, there are two possibilities. One, the people would work collectively, or on the basis of a schedule, for these jobs. If they are neccesary to the people's survival, the jobs obviously must be done, and we can only assume that people would rather do 'undesirable' jobs than die.

Or, with a real system of government with an actual economic system, you could just pay someone well to do it, like in capitalism.

Two, some communists say that technology can assume some of these, even most, undesirable jobs.

It takes money to develop technology, which cannot exist in an Anarchist(or psuedo-Anarchist) system. :doh

I think that socialism has the danger of going back to capitalism, not communism. Communsim is so radically different from capitalism that regression seems extremely unlikely.

You call it danger, I call it common sense prevailing. You are right about communism not reverting back to capitalism, the people will bring that change about quickly when they realize just how bad communism is.

As for 'lazy ones' and 'hard working ones', I think some form of punishment for this laziness will be decided in each commune. The people, to ensure their own survival, must make sure that the lazy are made to work just like everyone else. Also, modeling may be of use as well. As you mention, few will enjoy the labor and work extremely hard, and most will simply 'do their duty'. This leaves a small percentage of 'lazy' people. That means that these lazy people will be able to see their peers hard at work, and often will receive criticism and, as mentioned, punishment communally, for not doing their duty. Either way, the lazy ones will be dealt with.

Yeah, that'll show 'em I have seen so many lazy people who care what others think :roll: seriously, what's the worst thing a commune can do, kick someone out, big whoop.

 

[libertarian_knight]

LaMidRighter

Societies form out of cooperation and unity, governments form not out of peace but the strong preying on the weak.

So, what you are essentially saying, is that in anarchic societies, some people will prey on the weak and form governments. That government is an inevitability born out of Man's impatience and ignorance.

Do not confuse Leadership, organization and cooperation with governance. They can be, is rare circumstances related, but are not synonymous.

It takes money to develop technology, which cannot exist in an Anarchist(or psuedo-Anarchist) system

.– LaMidRider.
Money’s existence and origins had developed outside the State. Simply because the state now controls the “coining” of money, arbitration of it’s value and distribution, does not mean that the State was necessary for the emergence of monies in cooperative societies. Money and technological development are not contingent up the existence of any State or hegemonic institution.
http://www.mises.org/money.asp

Bear in mind, while reading this, I am an AVID individualist and capitalist and oppose all collectivist ideologies. However, I feel you do a disservice to capitalism particularly when you suppose that the existence of a state is necessary for economies to function or flourish.

Think: If the state were necessary to create economies or money, where then did the state get the monies to fund itself? Well, reality and logic would tell you, there must have been a society and economy there first, and monies for the statist predators, soldiers and taxmen to steal.

 

[faminedynasty]

Democratic socialism.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Societies form out of cooperation and unity, governments form not out of peace but the strong preying on the weak.

For the most part this is true, according to the social contract theory, but societies also form to prevent the preying upon of the weak from the strong, it is a consent of the governed to be protected and regulated, I am not saying that society and government are one in the same, don't get me wrong. Society encompases the collective will of members with common interests whereas government can be a society or a collection of societies, such as we have in the U.S.(states, communitites and counties all have different social rules and laws, yet the larger, federal "society" has set a basic standard)

So, what you are essentially saying, is that in anarchic societies, some people will prey on the weak and form governments. That government is an inevitability born out of Man's impatience and ignorance.

That is actually a philosophy that was established in...I believe the 17th century, it states that human nature is flawed and competitive and thus, must be controlled through a general consent of a people to be governed, the theory is assumptive and somewhat flawed, but was refined by later scholars to say that some stronger members will prey on others and government is necessary in some form to protect a society.

Do not confuse Leadership, organization and cooperation with governance. They can be, is rare circumstances related, but are not synonymous.

No argument.

.– LaMidRider.
Money’s existence and origins had developed outside the State. Simply because the state now controls the “coining” of money, arbitration of it’s value and distribution, does not mean that the State was necessary for the emergence of monies in cooperative societies. Money and technological development are not contingent up the existence of any State or hegemonic institution.
http://www.mises.org/money.asp

Yes and no, in reality, the first money wasn't in the form of currency as we know it, that is true. Monetary value started as assigned values, what goods and how many equaled others per unit, this was eventually found to be inefficient, so we developed what we have now. The reason I made the technology/money statement to Anomaly is because realistically, he wants technology in an anarchist state, without a recognized government the means to learn technology faster would not be available, also, to build or buy those technologies would have to require a currency recognized by other societies/governments which would be IMO less than likely. I stand by my statement that it takes money not only to obtain technology, but to refine and upgrade it, along with the fact that developing new technologies would require some form of currency.

Bear in mind, while reading this, I am an AVID individualist and capitalist and oppose all collectivist ideologies. However, I feel you do a disservice to capitalism particularly when you suppose that the existence of a state is necessary for economies to function or flourish.

Actually, I've read earlier posts from you and can tell that. However, I do feel that a strong social contract based on a loosely regulated economy is the best way to foster economics, while it may not be an absolute necessity to form an economic system, I do feel it is necessary to maintain it.

Think: If the state were necessary to create economies or money, where then did the state get the monies to fund itself? Well, reality and logic would tell you, there must have been a society and economy there first, and monies for the statist predators, soldiers and taxmen to steal.

Not entirely, if the state has a social contract, then it should therefore reserve the right to create an economic system, yes, taxes must exist in some lesser form to at least circulate money through for basic operations, yes there must be a society first, but an economy based on anything besides bartering cannot exist because, logically, there is no set standard because each individual will have a differing opinion on what their goods or services are worth, therefore, some form of societal system of control(government) must exist to form a consensus of some kind.