Is Capitalism still the answer?

[North Yakistan]

And what if noone knows? Or if they are paid off?

Comrade Jim runs the bakery and every night fudges the books so he can take home an extra batch of pastries to his kids. How is this delt with?

An anti-corruption committee. I have never said that corruption will be non-existent, corruption happens under capitalism as well. However corruption would not be a big problem, nor a little one.

So now we are making broad assumptions.

How do to know there will be no corruption on the anti corruption council? Jim os paying off the investigator with croscants.

[Ardoki]

They are state-capitalism.

And a Soviet is a workers council not an ideology, use Stalinist or Leninist in it's place.

I understand the concept of A soviet I was referencing THE Soviet Union as to include both Lennin and Stalin.

And they were certainly not capitolists. If you can define them out of communism then I can define them out of capitolism. They were statist whores

I said state-capitalism. I agree that they weren't capitalists, state-capitalism is not capitalism, however it shares some similarities (the upper exploiting classes and the exploited working classes) with capitalism.

[Lithuanian Empire]

You see, if you force a system on a group, then there have to be people who force it and people who work and pay for the forcement of the system. It eventually turns into a dictatorship by people who force the utopic society. And that's not what you want, right?
If we do it not by force, like a nation turning into an anarcho communist nation, itcould be better, but not good, because not everyone's a communist, and not everyone would want to lose all their stuff.

Utopias don't work. Communism is an utopia.

The vast majority of people would like ti since it would maximise their personal and economic freedoms and lead to a much higher living standard and life.

Not really. People are not stupid.
Also, economic freedom is free market, and personal freedom already exists.

If you want such a society, it does not mean everyone does.

[North Yakistan]

You see, if you force a system on a group, then there have to be people who force it and people who work and pay for the forcement of the system. It eventually turns into a dictatorship by people who force the utopic society. And that's not what you want, right?
If we do it not by force, like a nation turning into an anarcho communist nation, itcould be better, but not good, because not everyone's a communist, and not everyone would want to lose all their stuff.

Utopias don't work. Communism is an utopia.

The vast majority of people would like ti since it would maximise their personal and economic freedoms and lead to a much higher living standard and life.

Bahaha maximize freedoms! Do you even understand what your saying? If all your food and products come from rations assigned by the allocations committed you have 0 economic freedom.

[Grykten]

An anti-corruption committee. I have never said that corruption will be non-existent, corruption happens under capitalism as well. However corruption would not be a big problem, nor a little one.

So now we are making broad assumptions.

How do to know there will be no corruption on the anti corruption council? Jim os paying off the investigator with croscants.

exactly, corruption was pandemic in almost all soviet like countries. That's what prevented any growth in the soviet union during the early eighties.

[Ardoki]

An anti-corruption committee. I have never said that corruption will be non-existent, corruption happens under capitalism as well. However corruption would not be a big problem, nor a little one.

So now we are making broad assumptions.

How do to know there will be no corruption on the anti corruption council? Jim os paying off the investigator with croscants.

We already know that there is a lot of corruption in all national governments worldwide. I don't see how you think that if some corruption exists in a non capitalist society the society is terrible.

Why would Jim need to be corrupt, in a communist society he would have free access to everything he and his family needs to survive. Plus thanks to people like Jim who spend a little time working several days a week, their is also free access to Jim's realistic wants.

[North Yakistan]

I understand the concept of A soviet I was referencing THE Soviet Union as to include both Lennin and Stalin.

And they were certainly not capitolists. If you can define them out of communism then I can define them out of capitolism. They were statist whores

I said state-capitalism. I agree that they weren't capitalists, state-capitalism is not capitalism, however it shares some similarities (the upper exploiting classes and the exploited working classes) with capitalism.

No because the voluntary trade of labor for wages is not exploitive. The worker wants his wages more than his labor and vice versa for the employer.

[Grykten]

So now we are making broad assumptions.

How do to know there will be no corruption on the anti corruption council? Jim os paying off the investigator with croscants.

We already know that there is a lot of corruption in all national governments worldwide. I don't see how you think that if some corruption exists in a non capitalist society the society is terrible.

Why would Jim need to be corrupt, in a communist society he would have free access to everything he and his family needs to survive. Plus thanks to people like Jim who spend a little time working several days a week, their is also free access to Jim's realistic wants.

Jim has free access only if he goes through 98 pages of bureacracy, knows friends in government, and if there is anything available.

[Ostroeuropa]

A keynsian solution is the best idea we've got so far, except maybe syndicalist corporation models...

I think keynesisan economics is the best we've got so far as well. We need less austerity and thatcherism/reaganism.

I admit i'm not sure if the low taxes/low regulation thatcherism is reversible.

[Lithuanian Empire]

So now we are making broad assumptions.

How do to know there will be no corruption on the anti corruption council? Jim os paying off the investigator with croscants.

We already know that there is a lot of corruption in all national governments worldwide. I don't see how you think that if some corruption exists in a non capitalist society the society is terrible.

Why would Jim need to be corrupt, in a communist society he would have free access to everything he and his family needs to survive. Plus thanks to people like Jim who spend a little time working several days a week, their is also free access to Jim's realistic wants.

Jim would be corrupt because he wants to achieve more.
Also, utopic ideas again. Think realistic.

[Ardoki]

So now we are making broad assumptions.

How do to know there will be no corruption on the anti corruption council? Jim os paying off the investigator with croscants.

exactly, corruption was pandemic in almost all soviet like countries. That's what prevented any growth in the soviet union during the early eighties.

And the Soviet Union was not communist. In fact there was still the worlds lowest GINI Index with all the corruption, so it wasn't that bad at all.

The reason growth slowed down in the early 80s was because the USSR became more capitalistic, this didn't go down well and it eventually collapsed. The RSFSR had a better economy that Russia did all throughout the 90s until today. Your argument is weak.

[North Yakistan]

So now we are making broad assumptions.

How do to know there will be no corruption on the anti corruption council? Jim os paying off the investigator with croscants.

We already know that there is a lot of corruption in all national governments worldwide. I don't see how you think that if some corruption exists in a non capitalist society the society is terrible.

Why would Jim need to be corrupt, in a communist society he would have free access to everything he and his family needs to survive. Plus thanks to people like Jim who spend a little time working several days a week, their is also free access to Jim's realistic wants.

Why would he need to? Because humans inherently want more. Marxism does not understand not account for human nature.

Scarcity, the natural inability for all resources to meet all demands, is inevitable, and any post-scarcity talk is absolute BS.

[Ardoki]

We already know that there is a lot of corruption in all national governments worldwide. I don't see how you think that if some corruption exists in a non capitalist society the society is terrible.

Why would Jim need to be corrupt, in a communist society he would have free access to everything he and his family needs to survive. Plus thanks to people like Jim who spend a little time working several days a week, their is also free access to Jim's realistic wants.

Jim has free access only if he goes through 98 pages of bureacracy, knows friends in government, and if there is anything available.

What on earth are you talking about. Do you even know what communism is?

[Grykten]

I think keynesisan economics is the best we've got so far as well. We need less austerity and thatcherism/reaganism.

I admit i'm not sure if the low taxes/low regulation thatcherism is reversible.

Let's hope so. Austerity is hitting europe hard. It's a very tricky situation now though, so any reversal of austerity/thatcherism/reaganism will have to be slow and steady.

[Grenartia]

They are state-capitalism.

And a Soviet is a workers council not an ideology, use Stalinist or Leninist in it's place.

I understand the concept of A soviet I was referencing THE Soviet Union as to include both Lennin and Stalin.

And they were certainly not capitolists. If you can define them out of communism then I can define them out of capitolism. They were statist whores

Doesn't mean they weren't state capitalists.

[Lithuanian Empire]

I said state-capitalism. I agree that they weren't capitalists, state-capitalism is not capitalism, however it shares some similarities (the upper exploiting classes and the exploited working classes) with capitalism.

No because the voluntary trade of labor for wages is not exploitive. The worker wants his wages more than his labor and vice versa for the employer.

This, also, the wage for work trade is an agreement that you accept when you are hired.
Also, in current Western society, workers are not exploited, they have good wahes, safety regulations, short work days, unions, etc. Considering a Soviet worker's minimum wage was 30 dollars, I'd say it's fair.

[Ardoki]

We already know that there is a lot of corruption in all national governments worldwide. I don't see how you think that if some corruption exists in a non capitalist society the society is terrible.

Why would Jim need to be corrupt, in a communist society he would have free access to everything he and his family needs to survive. Plus thanks to people like Jim who spend a little time working several days a week, their is also free access to Jim's realistic wants.

Jim would be corrupt because he wants to achieve more.
Also, utopic ideas again. Think realistic.

Why would he want to achieve more, he does not need to achieve more. He has everything he needs and his wants are satisfied.
It would not be possible for him to exploit the system nor does he have a reason to do it. If he contributes he shall receive everything he needs as well as his wants. Plus why would the non-existant officials help him even if they existed.

[North Yakistan]

I understand the concept of A soviet I was referencing THE Soviet Union as to include both Lennin and Stalin.

And they were certainly not capitolists. If you can define them out of communism then I can define them out of capitolism. They were statist whores

Doesn't mean they weren't state capitalists.

I'm not advicating state capitolism I'm advocating free markets and individual sovereignty.

[Ardoki]

No because the voluntary trade of labor for wages is not exploitive. The worker wants his wages more than his labor and vice versa for the employer.

This, also, the wage for work trade is an agreement that you accept when you are hired.
Also, in current Western society, workers are not exploited, they have good wahes, safety regulations, short work days, unions, etc. Considering a Soviet worker's minimum wage was 30 dollars, I'd say it's fair.

30 dollars an hour is really good. Compare that to the $7.50 in America.

[Ardoki]

Doesn't mean they weren't state capitalists.

I'm not advicating state capitolism I'm advocating free markets and individual sovereignty.

We never said you were.

[Lemanrussland]

Capitalism is the better system, in my opinion.

The free price system is a much more efficient organizational mechanism than central planning. While markets are not perfect (far from it), market failures can be addressed through regulation, and social inequities can be addressed via social policy.

As far as worker-cooperatives are concerned, these can easily exist in a market system. There are at least 400 such businesses in operation in the United States, and upwards of 11,000 if you count ESOPs (employee stock ownership plans, where workers own part or all of the company).

Workplace democracy never materialized in most communist nations which used central planning, instead the economy was controlled by the state bureaucracy.

[Lithuanian Empire]

exactly, corruption was pandemic in almost all soviet like countries. That's what prevented any growth in the soviet union during the early eighties.

And the Soviet Union was not communist. In fact there was still the worlds lowest GINI Index with all the corruption, so it wasn't that bad at all.

The reason growth slowed down in the early 80s was because the USSR became more capitalistic, this didn't go down well and it eventually collapsed. The RSFSR had a better economy that Russia did all throughout the 90s until today. Your argument is weak.

The USSR collapsed because it's economy was never strong, it survived on oil and debt, and when in 1990s situation became horrible, it collapsed.

[Ardoki]

And the Soviet Union was not communist. In fact there was still the worlds lowest GINI Index with all the corruption, so it wasn't that bad at all.

The reason growth slowed down in the early 80s was because the USSR became more capitalistic, this didn't go down well and it eventually collapsed. The RSFSR had a better economy that Russia did all throughout the 90s until today. Your argument is weak.

The USSR collapsed because it's economy was never strong, it survived on oil and debt, and when in 1990s situation became horrible, it collapsed.

And Russia's economy was worse why?

[Grykten]

Jim has free access only if he goes through 98 pages of bureacracy, knows friends in government, and if there is anything available.

What on earth are you talking about. Do you even know what communism is?

1. When Gorbachev tried to reform the economy it did start moving again but by that time the people were so dissillusioned with communism that they overthrew it.

2. Corruption made everyone equally broke. except the government. They were wealthy.

3. Planned economies mean extreme inefficiencies. Yes Jim would have to do those things.

[Grykten]

Capitalism is the better system, in my opinion.

The free price system is a much more efficient organizational mechanism than central planning. While markets are not perfect (far from it), market failures can be addressed through regulation, and social inequities can be addressed via social policy.

As far as worker-cooperatives are concerned, these can easily exist in a market system. There are at least 400 such businesses in operation in the United States, and upwards of 11,000 if you count ESOPs (employee stock ownership plans, where workers own part or all of the company).

Workplace democracy never materialized in most communist nations which used central planning, instead the economy was controlled by the state bureaucracy.

exactly, brilliant summary.