Capitalism vs. Communism

[Keronians]

And worker B should be left to suffer due to no fault of his own?

What kind of a society is that?

Now, I'm personally not too sure about the exact pay, but I'm pretty clear on the fact that, during recruitment, discrimination between the disabled and able should be illegal.

And if the method of payment is a salary, then worker B should get equal pay. Obviously, if it's piece-rate, he isn't going to get the same, but, IMO, he should still get more than, say, worker C who is able but is equally as productive as B.

No, no. Simply that worker A should receive more for being a more productive worker, I make exceptions for previously agreed contracts and other examples of course, but it seems only fair.

I'm not in favour of him suffering at all, he lost his arm, I should like to imagine that people exist who would help him support himself, and by any rate this is supposing he does makes money at piece-rate and I don't see why not, piece-rate is generally the best efficiency wise and incentive wise, but I suppose that's why wage pay is preferred, and I wouldn't really oppose a store choosing to pay them equally, they all agreed to it.

But I would prefer to run my business by piece-rate, if possible.

Hm, I do disagree with piece-rate being the best incentive wise.

If you include quality in efficiency, then I disagree on that too.

Although there is no right and wrong answer when it comes to management and motivation. I assume that you ascribe to Taylor's scientific management approach?

[Staeny]

No, no. Simply that worker A should receive more for being a more productive worker, I make exceptions for previously agreed contracts and other examples of course, but it seems only fair.

I'm not in favour of him suffering at all, he lost his arm, I should like to imagine that people exist who would help him support himself, and by any rate this is supposing he does makes money at piece-rate and I don't see why not, piece-rate is generally the best efficiency wise and incentive wise, but I suppose that's why wage pay is preferred, and I wouldn't really oppose a store choosing to pay them equally, they all agreed to it.

But I would prefer to run my business by piece-rate, if possible.

Hm, I do disagree with piece-rate being the best incentive wise.

If you include quality in efficiency, then I disagree on that too.

Although there is no right and wrong answer when it comes to management and motivation. I assume that you ascribe to Taylor's scientific management approach?

There will probably be standards of quality. There are probably also right answers with effective managing...there are just so many variables affecting the situation that there is no ONE correct answer.

[The Merchant Republics]

Let's try to analyse them all:

Capitalist economic system:

Based on: Demand and offer
Works: good
Result: a stable economic system
Responsible for: the grow of China, the raising of the GDP (per capita) in former communist countries


Communist/socialist economic system:

Based on: production by needs
Works: Reasonable
Results: a weak economic system, but more 'equal' than capitalism
Responsible for: growing of the Soviet Union, Growing of China, making agriculture countries industrial



Conclusion?: First of all, socialist/communist system is good for countries who are in a transform, after that, please use the capitalist sytem.

Very wrong. Communist thinkers were even quite clear about this, communism is not a good method of industrialization, the transition from agrarian to industrial in the Soviet Union and PRC we're both incredibly painful, the Chinese "Great Leap Forward" killed millions, and Stalin's five year plans we're unquestionably bloody. And all in all didn't work out too well. Soviet Russia industrialized yes, but it's commercial and civilian sectors we're woefully inadequate for all the money that was pumped into them and China didn't see even a modicum of success until it began to open up to world trade.

Capitalism agrarian to industrial transitions on the other hand are almost exclusively bloodless, and the violence seen in Western strike-breaking practices has no comparison to the kind of despotism practised in China and Russia. Even the bloodiest strikes in the West counted less than deaths than the violence Stalin committed in single months.

[Keronians]

Hm, I do disagree with piece-rate being the best incentive wise.

If you include quality in efficiency, then I disagree on that too.

Although there is no right and wrong answer when it comes to management and motivation. I assume that you ascribe to Taylor's scientific management approach?

There will probably be standards of quality. There are probably also right answers with effective managing...there are just so many variables affecting the situation that there is no ONE correct answer.

Yes, but positions can be defended.

Mayo successfully argued and persuaded business owners that social contact was more important than pay when it came to motivation.

Herzberg was also successful with his two-factor theory, concluding that pay comes into hygiene factors.

As for quality, workers may try to finish their products as quickly as possible, and the finished product may then be dodgy.

Now, I understand that there are quality controls. But the more material scrapped, and the more the production line has to be kept active to replace the dodgy products, the worse.

[Duce Natura]

Let's try to analyse them all:

Capitalist economic system:

Based on: Demand and offer
Works: good
Result: a stable economic system
Responsible for: the grow of China, the raising of the GDP (per capita) in former communist countries


Communist/socialist economic system:

Based on: production by needs
Works: Reasonable
Results: a weak economic system, but more 'equal' than capitalism
Responsible for: growing of the Soviet Union, Growing of China, making agriculture countries industrial



Conclusion?: First of all, socialist/communist system is good for countries who are in a transform, after that, please use the capitalist sytem.

Very wrong. Communist thinkers were even quite clear about this, communism is not a good method of industrialization, the transition from agrarian to industrial in the Soviet Union and PRC we're both incredibly painful, the Chinese "Great Leap Forward" killed millions, and Stalin's five year plans we're unquestionably bloody.

Capitalism agrarian to industrial transitions on the other hand are almost exclusively bloodless, and the violence seen in Western strike-breaking practices has no comparison to the kind of despotism practised in China and Russia. Even the bloodiest strikes in the West counted less than deaths than the violence Stalin committed in single months.

I totally agree with you, but still, it was responsible for the grow of the USSR and the PRC. Althought I could rather not place the fact that socialism is the best system.

On the other hand, 'pure' capitalism also has its hard edges, which again can be softened by a welfare state. Again, a welfare state is not good enought since it probably will cost more money than a nation can afford. It's an endless paradox unfortinatly.

[Staeny]

There will probably be standards of quality. There are probably also right answers with effective managing...there are just so many variables affecting the situation that there is no ONE correct answer.

Yes, but positions can be defended.

Mayo successfully argued and persuaded business owners that social contact was more important than pay when it came to motivation.

Herzberg was also successful with his two-factor theory, concluding that pay comes into hygiene factors.

yeah I'm not arguing with you on motivations factors...some motivations suit some circumstances and some suit others. Thing could be said about which system, capitalism or communism, has the flexibility to provide these different motivations.

[The Merchant Republics]

Hm, I do disagree with piece-rate being the best incentive wise.

If you include quality in efficiency, then I disagree on that too.

Although there is no right and wrong answer when it comes to management and motivation. I assume that you ascribe to Taylor's scientific management approach?

As far as I have been acquainted with the approach, yes.

I'm sure other management styles would see alternative ways of increasing productivity and worker satisfaction, I tend to see it as a straight business model, and that's probably less accurate than it ought to be. Human factors and all.

[Keronians]

Hm, I do disagree with piece-rate being the best incentive wise.

If you include quality in efficiency, then I disagree on that too.

Although there is no right and wrong answer when it comes to management and motivation. I assume that you ascribe to Taylor's scientific management approach?

As far as I have been acquainted with the approach, yes.

I'm sure other management styles would see alternative ways of increasing productivity and worker satisfaction, I tend to see it as a straight business model, and that's probably less accurate than it ought to be. Human factors and all.

Eh, I'm not a big fan of Taylor's model.

Herzberg's two-factor theory, on the other hand, appeals quite a lot to me.

Basically these (taken straight out from a paper I did on motivation) are the flaws I see in Taylor's approach:

His methodology involved observing workers performing their tasks using different methods of production. The fastest would be employed, and managers would supervise workers to ensure that they were using that method. He believed in division of labour and profit sharing.

Short summary.

However, a piece-rate scheme could lead workers to sacrifice quality in favour of quantity. Workers rushing to produce as many products as possible may leave defects, or other undesirable things in the finished product. This would reduce customer satisfaction, as the quality of the firm’s goods goes down.

Furthermore, this scheme offers little security to workers. They could end up not earning anything a certain month.

And this is an extract from my argument against Taylor.

There's much more, but it also gets Mayo, Herzberg and Maslow into it, and the various kinds of pay schemes, and really wouldn't make any sense without context.

[The Merchant Republics]

As far as I have been acquainted with the approach, yes.

I'm sure other management styles would see alternative ways of increasing productivity and worker satisfaction, I tend to see it as a straight business model, and that's probably less accurate than it ought to be. Human factors and all.

Eh, I'm not a big fan of Taylor's model.

Herzberg's two-factor theory, on the other hand, appeals quite a lot to me.

Basically these (taken straight out from a paper I did on motivation) are the flaws I see in Taylor's approach:

His methodology involved observing workers performing their tasks using different methods of production. The fastest would be employed, and managers would supervise workers to ensure that they were using that method. He believed in division of labour and profit sharing.

Short summary.

However, a piece-rate scheme could lead workers to sacrifice quality in favour of quantity. Workers rushing to produce as many products as possible may leave defects, or other undesirable things in the finished product. This would reduce customer satisfaction, as the quality of the firm’s goods goes down.

Furthermore, this scheme offers little security to workers. They could end up not earning anything a certain month.

And this is an extract from my argument against Taylor.

There's much more, but it also gets Mayo, Herzberg and Maslow into it, and the various kinds of pay schemes, and really wouldn't make any sense without context.

Valid criticism. I admit to not being well-versed on the subject.

[The Aryan Nations]

If I was a commie, I'd have donated money to charity rather than buy a flag to look non-conformist... you have to be more sly than that...

I'd even pay a 100% taxation, if it would be used on social welfare. And I've donated a lot of money, and I have a communist emblem on my door just to scare the Jehovah's Witnesses away. That's about all the protesting I do

That works? Fuck, looks like i need to go to the store now.

[Bosiu]

I'd even pay a 100% taxation, if it would be used on social welfare. And I've donated a lot of money, and I have a communist emblem on my door just to scare the Jehovah's Witnesses away. That's about all the protesting I do

That works? Fuck, looks like i need to go to the store now.

Hear it works on Mormons too...

[The Aryan Nations]

This idea could work for ape-human hybrids, which is why I support the Stalin regime's research into the subject.

ive been wondering what happened with that; it seems to have just randomly stopped.

[Tlaceceyaya]

I'd even pay a 100% taxation, if it would be used on social welfare. And I've donated a lot of money, and I have a communist emblem on my door just to scare the Jehovah's Witnesses away. That's about all the protesting I do

That works? Fuck, looks like i need to go to the store now.

Ask your fellow proletarian to give you one.

[The Aryan Nations]

Because you're a human, worthy of equality.

Well, it is an interesting issue. Being rewarded the same whether one works harder and the other less so; in my opinion is silly. But if someone is unable to do as much, then it is another story.
A good (but simple) example:

Two people work in a small shop. One makes 10 Christmas cards an hour (worker A). The other worker only has one arm (perhaps lost his other in an accident); so he is able to only make 5 Christmas cards an hour (worker B).
The question is; should they be both rewarded the same? Or should worker A be rewarded more than worker B because worker A makes more Christmas cards than worker B?
It is not that worker B is working not as hard as worker A, but it is that he has a physical disability, so he cannot work as hard.

Opinions?

this is why greed and individual-over-community beliefs have to be bred out of the population. they all will work their absolute hardest, regardless as to material reward, as there is no money; only the beautiful image of brotherhood.

[Britennene]

I'd even pay a 100% taxation, if it would be used on social welfare. And I've donated a lot of money, and I have a communist emblem on my door just to scare the Jehovah's Witnesses away. That's about all the protesting I do

That works? Fuck, looks like i need to go to the store now.

Sure it does! I highly recommend it (Even to capitalists.)

[Four-sided Triangles]

I'm a pragmatist. I don't think that idealistic morality is appropriate for the context of national and international policy.

I support whatever economic system works the best. For now, that's a kind of reluctant capitalism.

[The Aryan Nations]

That works? Fuck, looks like i need to go to the store now.

Hear it works on Mormons too...

*happygasm*

[The Aryan Nations]

I'm a pragmatist. I don't think that idealistic morality is appropriate for the context of national and international policy.

I support whatever economic system works the best. For now, that's a kind of reluctant capitalism.

but you DO support laws forcing your skewed morality down everyones throats.

[Four-sided Triangles]

but you DO support laws forcing your skewed morality down everyones throats.

And what laws would those be?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Well, it is an interesting issue. Being rewarded the same whether one works harder and the other less so; in my opinion is silly. But if someone is unable to do as much, then it is another story.
A good (but simple) example:

Two people work in a small shop. One makes 10 Christmas cards an hour (worker A). The other worker only has one arm (perhaps lost his other in an accident); so he is able to only make 5 Christmas cards an hour (worker B).
The question is; should they be both rewarded the same? Or should worker A be rewarded more than worker B because worker A makes more Christmas cards than worker B?
It is not that worker B is working not as hard as worker A, but it is that he has a physical disability, so he cannot work as hard.

Opinions?

this is why greed and individual-over-community beliefs have to be bred out of the population. they all will work their absolute hardest, regardless as to material reward, as there is no money; only the beautiful image of brotherhood.

Yes. Because selective breeding programs and tampering with genetics ALWAYS make things so much better.

[The Aryan Nations]

but you DO support laws forcing your skewed morality down everyones throats.

And what laws would those be?

the "sex is bad bro you cant have sex its demeaning to women" crap.

[The Aryan Nations]

this is why greed and individual-over-community beliefs have to be bred out of the population. they all will work their absolute hardest, regardless as to material reward, as there is no money; only the beautiful image of brotherhood.

Yes. Because selective breeding programs and tampering with genetics ALWAYS make things so much better.

you arent tampering with genetics. you are using the socialist process over several generations to teach everyone to value community over individual. 'breed it out' is simply for lack of a better term.

[Four-sided Triangles]

the "sex is bad bro you cant have sex its demeaning to women" crap.

When did I say I would outlaw sex if given the chance?

[The Aryan Nations]

the "sex is bad bro you cant have sex its demeaning to women" crap.

When did I say I would outlaw sex if given the chance?

every single thread ever posted on the subject, you said the government should outlaw sex.

[Four-sided Triangles]

you arent tampering with genetics. you are using the socialist process over several generations to teach everyone to value community over individual. 'breed it out' is simply for lack of a better term.

Provided such a thing is actually possible within the confines of human biology.