NationStates

Northern Davincia wrote:

Orostan wrote:Cooperatives would be set up as such. Let us say we have one product, a car. This car is produced in two different factories. These cooperatives compete to produce the car most efficiently, and they do so because being more efficient reduces their working hours. It personally benefits them to work less because they can do other things, even if work is pleasant.


The number of people who will just choose not to work in any sort of way and sit at home is an extremely small minority. The vast majority of people want to do something.



Capital is very good at improving existing technologies, but it often takes the government funding development to get long term research (new inventions) done. A socialist system will be at least as good as capital in the former, and much better in the latter.

So if work is optional, why care about how many hours you work? You could show up for one hour and do very little, yet still get the very car others worked hard on for free.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Orostan wrote:Cooperatives would be set up as such. Let us say we have one product, a car. This car is produced in two different factories. These cooperatives compete to produce the car most efficiently, and they do so because being more efficient reduces their working hours. It personally benefits them to work less because they can do other things, even if work is pleasant.


The number of people who will just choose not to work in any sort of way and sit at home is an extremely small minority. The vast majority of people want to do something.



Capital is very good at improving existing technologies, but it often takes the government funding development to get long term research (new inventions) done. A socialist system will be at least as good as capital in the former, and much better in the latter.

So if work is optional, why care about how many hours you work? You could show up for one hour and do very little, yet still get the very car others worked hard on for free.

Duvniask wrote:Surely it is in one's own interest to improve the quality of life - shortening the work week, in other words increasing productivity, etc.? There's an incentive to innovate right there.

A business could very well benefit from kindness to workers, as demonstrated by Henry Ford, because it gives a serious edge over competitors.

Orostan wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:I would agree with you on it not being the sole driving factor, but in a modern context, I'd absolutely find it to be the main one.

If selfishness was the prime driver of human behavior, we'd already be living in communism.

New haven america wrote:

Liriena wrote:Tbh, you could seriously point to Hollywood as an example of this: competition between major studios drives a lot of them to pour obscene amounts of resources into "safe bets", chasing trends and sometimes directly meddling with their products to increase market appeal, often leading to mediocre or disastrous results. Countless passion projects end up in development hell, artists get fired for not accommodating to the financial aspirations of their bosses, and films get radically altered in post-production to emulate competitors' past successes.

Don't forget the fact that studios end up buying as much as they possibly can, thus monopolizing the industry and controlling the flow of information.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Orostan wrote:If selfishness was the prime driver of human behavior, we'd already be living in communism.

I guess capitalists are the true altruists.
Ew.

New haven america wrote:Don't forget the fact that studios end up buying as much as they possibly can, thus monopolizing the industry and controlling the flow of information.

Disney will bring us Ancapistan.

Orostan wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:I guess capitalists are the true altruists.
Ew.

Disney will bring us Ancapistan.

Are you familiar with class interest? Most people happen to be workers, an their interest is communism.

Orostan wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:So if work is optional, why care about how many hours you work? You could show up for one hour and do very little, yet still get the very car others worked hard on for free.

A business could very well benefit from kindness to workers, as demonstrated by Henry Ford, because it gives a serious edge over competitors.

1) Because you want to, or recognize that if everyone else does the same there will be no car.

2) Henry Ford raised wages and made sure workers were not dying because his wife threatened to divorce him if he didn't, and unions had started to put on pressure. He also did it for the PR. He wasn't 'kind' for no reason.

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:

Orostan wrote:Are you familiar with class interest? Most people happen to be workers, an their interest is communism.

My interest is not communism, and I say this as a worker.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Orostan wrote:1) Because you want to, or recognize that if everyone else does the same there will be no car.

2) Henry Ford raised wages and made sure workers were not dying because his wife threatened to divorce him if he didn't, and unions had started to put on pressure. He also did it for the PR. He wasn't 'kind' for no reason.

1. That explains the shortages in the Soviet Union.
2. His reasoning and the actual effects on his business are separate.

Orostan wrote:

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
My interest is not communism, and I say this as a worker.

Is it in your economic interest to own your own labor, to not be exploited, and to control your workplace democratically for your own benefit and the benefit of every other worker?

Orostan wrote:

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
My interest is not communism, and I say this as a worker.

Is it in your economic interest to own your own labor, to not be exploited, and to control your workplace democratically for your own benefit and the benefit of every other worker?

Northern Davincia wrote:

New haven america wrote:Don't forget the fact that studios end up buying as much as they possibly can, thus monopolizing the industry and controlling the flow of information.

Disney will bring us Ancapistan.

Orostan wrote:

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
My interest is not communism, and I say this as a worker.

Is it in your economic interest to own your own labor, to not be exploited, and to control your workplace democratically for your own benefit and the benefit of every other worker?

Northern Davincia wrote:

Orostan wrote:If selfishness was the prime driver of human behavior, we'd already be living in communism.

I guess capitalists are the true altruists.

New haven america wrote:

Orostan wrote:Is it in your economic interest to own your own labor, to not be exploited, and to control your workplace democratically for your own benefit and the benefit of every other worker?

That's why social democracy and corporate democracy exists.

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:

Orostan wrote:Is it in your economic interest to own your own labor, to not be exploited, and to control your workplace democratically for your own benefit and the benefit of every other worker?

No, yes and yes.

The South Falls wrote:

Orostan wrote:Is it in your economic interest to own your own labor, to not be exploited, and to control your workplace democratically for your own benefit and the benefit of every other worker?

Not really, yes, and yes.

Orostan wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:1. That explains the shortages in the Soviet Union.
2. His reasoning and the actual effects on his business are separate.

1. Do you understand what socialism or communism are or do you think they are the same thing?
2. No, they are not. This was a business decision primarily.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Orostan wrote:1. Do you understand what socialism or communism are or do you think they are the same thing?
2. No, they are not. This was a business decision primarily.

1. Communism is merely the end stage of socialism. The same flaws that create shortages, namely the lack of incentive, are endemic to both.
2. A good business decision that just so happened to have competitive advantages.

Orostan wrote:

New haven america wrote:That's why social democracy and corporate democracy exists.

Both of those are capitalism, or slightly altered capitalism.

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
No, yes and yes.

The South Falls wrote:Not really, yes, and yes.

2/3 for communism

Though I'd like to know why you don't like owning your own labor. It implies you'd rather just be paid a constant wage not based on how much you contribute.

Orostan wrote:

New haven america wrote:That's why social democracy and corporate democracy exists.

Both of those are capitalism, or slightly altered capitalism.

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:

Orostan wrote:Both of those are capitalism, or slightly altered capitalism.



2/3 for communism

Though I'd like to know why you don't like owning your own labor. It implies you'd rather just be paid a constant wage not based on how much you contribute.

"2/3 for communism"?

That's a pretty odd way of saying "social democracy" there, fam.

Besides, I already earn a good wage based on my experience, position and tasks, so I am perfectly happy with it as long as there is no removal of my social advantages.

New haven america wrote:

Orostan wrote:Both of those are capitalism, or slightly altered capitalism.

Actually, social democracy is considered a form of socialism.

Like, literally, it's entire history is wrapped up in the socialist movement and was invented as a midway point between capitalism and socialism. It's socialism-lite, basically.

Orostan wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:1. Communism is merely the end stage of socialism. The same flaws that create shortages, namely the lack of incentive, are endemic to both.
2. A good business decision that just so happened to have competitive advantages.

1. That's true but it's not that simple. Both are different economic systems, one has the other as the eventual goal. Also, shortages are not produced by socialism. The fastest industrialization in history was.

2. "Competitive advantages" is what makes a good business decision. Your statement is nonsensical.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Orostan wrote:1. That's true but it's not that simple. Both are different economic systems, one has the other as the eventual goal. Also, shortages are not produced by socialism. The fastest industrialization in history was.

2. "Competitive advantages" is what makes a good business decision. Your statement is nonsensical.

1. Somehow all that industrialization did not remove shortages of goods. You'll have to convince your fellow leftists that the USSR wasn't state-capitalist.
2. My point was that Ford's decision was beneficial to him because it was competitive.

Orostan wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:1. Somehow all that industrialization did not remove shortages of goods. You'll have to convince your fellow leftists that the USSR wasn't state-capitalist.
2. My point was that Ford's decision was beneficial to him because it was competitive.

1. The USSR only had shortages of things in the 1980s when Gorby was destroying it or during the 30s when it was still in the process of industrializing.
2. Yes, and that makes it a good business decision, proving my point that he didn't do it out of the kindness of his heart.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Orostan wrote:1. The USSR only had shortages of things in the 1980s when Gorby was destroying it or during the 30s when it was still in the process of industrializing.
2. Yes, and that makes it a good business decision, proving my point that he didn't do it out of the kindness of his heart.

1. https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/Con ... iet_Union/
2. I don't recall arguing that he had done it purely out of kindness, but the action itself was kind. People can do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Orostan wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:1. https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/Con ... iet_Union/
2. I don't recall arguing that he had done it purely out of kindness, but the action itself was kind. People can do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

1. That says that rationing only happened during the industrialization period and the second world war, and besides goods like cars most stuff was widely available all the time after any of these rationing periods.
2. Alright then. But the fact remains that Ford could have given his workers a lot more than he did, and he didn't do it because giving more wasn't in his class interest.