Communism vs Capitalism does anyone actually think we'd be better off in a Communist society?

[OldGimletEye]

35 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The point is, there is no reason to believe that government power is inherently more dangerous than corporate power (in the current system, this is in fact a false dichotomy since government power is inextricably tied to corporate interests). The problem is the concentration of power itself, which is a potential weakness of any human organization.

I think your list line in this paragraph makes the point. If you leave it to government to make every decision about what people consume and what they invest in, that is a huge concentration of power.

35 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I'm afraid I do not understand what your objection is.

On the one hand, human needs are much simpler and easier to compute than you seem to suggest. On the other hand, the consumption that's harder to predict is generally non-essential, and should either be constrained by the fight against climate change in the next decades anyway (with or without radical socio-economic evolutions), or on the contrary become almost limitless once we remove the straightjacket of the current order (and its dramatic undervaluation of some economic sectors).

It seems to me you're basically arguing for the preservation of individual agency through the specific act of consumption... While I'm arguing for agency through increasingly democratic processes (that, to be fair, do not exactly exist yet).
The two are not even absolutely mutually exclusive... By that I mean that adopting a democratic-communist perspective/framework overall does not totally exclude the possibility of preserving some highly-regulated markets, as long as they are limited in scope.

Its true of course that all humans have basic needs like food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. In a wealthy society, we should strive to make sure that everyone has those things.

But, for someone to sit there and presume to know what people need or should have to the last detail is both presumptuous and authoritarian. People have different circumstances and wants. And markets do a fairly good job of producing different products to fulfill those different circumstances and needs.

The fact of the matter is I don't want "democratic processes" in many areas of my life. I don't need "democratic approval" for the religion I might believe, for the TV shows I want to watch, for the books I want to read, on whom I should date or marry, etc.

Interestingly enough, there has been a lot research and interest of late in giving the poor cash grants, rather than giving them other benefits. One of the advantages and arguments for cash grants is that poor people might have better knowledge of their specific needs and how to spend their money. Evidently, you wouldn't think much cash grant programs, thinking that the poor's spending habits should be approved by some democratically elected central committee..

[Rippounet]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think your list line in this paragraph makes the point. If you leave it to government to make every decision about what people consume and what they invest in, that is a huge concentration of power.

I think you and I mean different things by "government."

Basically you keep assuming "government" is rather undemocratic, perhaps that it is a mix of politicians/representatives and faceless bureaucrats.

Otoh, I  view government as a mere conduit for new forms of democracy, i.e. that the movement should be toward the people having a far greater say in the decision-making processes.

Or, to put it differently, that there can't be more government regulation without government becoming far more democratic than it is today in the first place. I too am aware of the dangers of state power y'know.

After all, in classic "communism" the end result is the abolition of the state itself, as it is gradually replaced by the people, participating directly in the decision-making process.

It used to be that we didn't know how to do that (this was one of Hayek's key points). I think we do now. It's new, of course, but we're learning fast.

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

The fact of the matter is I don't want "democratic processes" in many areas of my life. I don't need "democratic approval" for the religion I might believe, for the TV shows I want to watch, for the books I want to read, on whom I should date or marry, etc.

Equating government regulation of the socio-economic sphere with government control of the socio-cultural one is another strawman, and it is typically American.

I suppose a simple way to dismiss this objection is to point out that capitalism requires no socio-cultural liberty whatsoever, that any link between the two is dubious at best.

Oh, and before, I forgot:

1 hour ago, Alarich II said:

What you are arguing for, is basically that at a given moment we will optimize our future production using only data; The necessary assumption being that, if we have all available data, then this is all we need to know. This is basically the end of innovation.  You cannot optimize beyond the data you have, so at one given moment, your VHS records will be produced at an optimal rate. But you'll never get to Netflix.

The equation of "innovation" with Netflix is rather telling. It reveals that your view of innocation is limited to the parameters of a consumer society.

You don't need a consumer society to have innovation. The consumer society is barely a century old, and I'm pretty damn certain humans knew how to innovate before that.

[OldGimletEye]

19 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Equating government regulation of the socio-economic sphere with government control of the socio-cultural one is another strawman, and it is typically American.

No it's not a strawman. I have never been against all regulation. I have argued extensively that in many cases regulation is justified. And I have argued elsewhere in many cases government intervention is justified.

But, mere regulation is not what you suggested. What you suggested was subjecting everyone's consumption plans and economic decisions, down to the last detail, it seems, to "democratic approval". That is a bridge too far for me, and probably a lot other people who aren't Americans.

19 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Otoh, I  view government as a mere conduit for new forms of democracy, i.e. that the movement should be toward the people having a far greater say in the decision-making processes.

Or, to put it differently, that there can't be more government regulation without government becoming far more democratic than it is today in the first place. I too am aware of the dangers of state power y'know.

Might be more convincing if illustrated with examples. Cause I'm not sure what this means.

[Rippounet]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

But, mere regulation is not what you suggested. What you suggested was subjecting everyone's consumption to "democratic approval".

Religious or sexual preferences have little to do with consumption or production.

Also, I pointed out (in passing) that there are many types of production that need little regulation (/democratic oversight): producing education, art, justice, or even healthcare, has little impact on the environment (and/or whatever impact they have can be brought down easily).

A simpler way to put it is that advocating for the iron-fist of collective oversight in some matters (our carbon footprint, basically) doesn't mean I'm interested in collective oversight of all matters.
The assumption is in fact mildly annoying/offensive.
Communism is about collective management of production (/resources) and the abolition of social classes (that is, no perpetuation of illegitimate inequality).
No self-respecting communist gives a damn about who or what you want to fuck, or to what fictional character you want to pray to.

[OldGimletEye]

17 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Religious or sexual preferences have little to do with consumption or production.

What if I want to rent some pornography? Does this need approval from your committee?

[Rippounet]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

What if I want to rent some pornography?

If you want to "rent" pornography in 2020 you have bigger problems than wondering about how communists might threaten your way of life.

[felice]

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

What if I want to rent some pornography? Does this need approval from your committee?

Rent? What makes you think you'd need to pay for it? Charging per unit for something with a marginal unit cost of zero doesn't make any sense. As long as there are exhibitionists who want to make the stuff, in the absence of economic pressures forcing them into it, then there's no problem. Though I suppose that's the sort of thing different political parties could have different views on.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, felice said:

Rent? What makes you think you'd need to pay for it? Charging per unit for something with a marginal unit cost of zero doesn't make any sense. As long as there are exhibitionists who want to make the stuff, in the absence of economic pressures forcing them into it, then there's no problem. Though I suppose that's the sort of thing different political parties could have different views on.

Lol, at the idea that it would be just exhibitionists making porn! 
 

If there is going to be anything that would be created in a black market, where there are buyers willing to pay for something , then it is going to be porn!

[OldGimletEye]

8 minutes ago, felice said:

Rent? What makes you think you'd need to pay for it? Charging per unit for something with a marginal unit cost of zero doesn't make any sense. As long as there are exhibitionists who want to make the stuff, in the absence of economic pressures forcing them into it, then there's no problem. Though I suppose that's the sort of thing different political parties could have different views on.

1. Except the making of porn by exhibitionist arguably does have a cost to the exhibitionist. They could be working, instead of making free porn. But, I guess they will need to apply to one of your committees before they do.

2. Clearly there are people who do make it professionally and people are willing to pay for it. Do they need one of your committee's approval too?

[OldGimletEye]

17 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

If you want to "rent" pornography in 2020 you have bigger problems than wondering about how communists might threaten your way of life.

Well, I think I'll call this the ol' Texas Two Step around a serious question. The nature of the question is how far will you go to control people's private decision making. Evidently quite far. So evidently, if somebody wants to pay for some professionally made porn, they need to get committee approval first.

[Alarich II]

24 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The equation of "innovation" with Netflix is rather telling. It reveals that your view of innocation is limited to the parameters of a consumer society.

You don't need a consumer society to have innovation. The consumer society is barely a century old, and I'm pretty damn certain humans knew how to innovate before that.

It was a mere example. You could take the automobile or the steam engine, or the wheel. The point is that you can optimize the status quo and some small, incrementral innovation will come with that. But the big game changers do not come simply by optimizing the status quo. You should really read up on Schumpeter; he did agree with Marx on a lot of things if that makes it easier for you to trust my recommendation.

Your fixation on data as some kind of solution to optimal production is funny and a bit sad, too. The problem, even with 100% complete data, is that it only describes the status quo and all you can optimize with it is therefore the status quo. So you're stuck with VHS. Or horse-carts; very fine horse-carts and optimized to the max but still inferior to automobiles; that's the funny part, that you advocate so much for progress but when it comes to production and innovation, all you offer is an optimal solution for the status quo. The sad part is that even though you are wildly optimistic when it comes to humans and what they can do with the state, your economic solution ignores a fantastic human ability and that is to think outside the box and be creative beyond the mere optimization of data.
 

Quote

 

The assumption is actually that it's easier to improve upon government, which by definition is supposed to work for the people, than it is to improve upon corporations, whose main purpose by definition is profit.

Conversely I do not see what distrust of the state/government brings to the table, except as a reminder of the power of American propaganda.

 

Maybe we have a different understanding about the functions of governemt and corporations. In my book, governments serve to regulate society - including corporations. The solution, that the state and the corporation become one, in the hope that the state will transform the corporation more than the other way round, is very unlikely to work and we've seen real live states fail with that kind of system, where the policing power of the state  and the capitalist monopoly become one.

To improve government doesn't mean that we have to give corporate ownership to the state, it means that government needs better tools to regulate those corporations. And because we give the state these powers to regulate and enforce, we need protection against abuse of this power. We need both protection from the majority and rule of the majority, finding the right balance here will always be a delicate path to tread.

The distrust that you so casually dismiss as American propaganda is in fact based on real experiences. A state built the wall and ordered it's army to shoot anyone fleeing, not a corporation. American propaganda didn't kill those people, didn't invent the Stasi, didn't take kids from their parents and forced adoptions. This is not something that people make up to discredit, there are millions still alive who can tell you their stories and what those governments did to them. So what the distrust of the state brings to the table is perspective and balance; your state was never out to get you and hopefully it stays that way. This is not what others have experienced, so they'd rather have the freedom to make their own bad decisions than have a democratic comittee dictate them right decisions.

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

The assumption is actually that it's easier to improve upon government, which by definition is supposed to work for the people, than it is to improve upon corporations, whose main purpose by definition is profit.

The theoretical motivations of these entities are not nearly as important as that assumption makes them out to be. Yes, the government is supposed to work for the people, but in reality, one of the primary goals of most people who come into power is to stay in power for as long as possible. This leads to all sorts of unsavory practices (both in communist and capitalist societies, although the practices often differ) that cause it to deviate considerably from working for the public good. Corporations suffer from the same problem which sometimes results in short-term behavior that is also inconsistent with long-term profit, but the good thing about corporations is that they're relatively small so it makes them easier to push around with laws whereas pushing a government around in a communist country... well, good luck with that.

[felice]

54 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

1. Except the making of porn by exhibitionist arguably does have a cost to the exhibitionist. They could be working, instead of making free porn. But, I guess they will need to apply to one of your committees before they do.

2. Clearly there are people who do make it professionally and people are willing to pay for it. Do they need one of your committee's approval too?

The legality of porn is a political issue, just as it is under capitalism. There's no reason to expect its status to change.

If people wanted to be paid to make porn, they'd need to apply for funding; assuming the people don't elect a government that objects on moral grounds or under-funds the arts, getting the funding approved shouldn't be a problem, since there will certainly be demand for it. Or alternatively, they make it for free, but get paid retroactively based on share of downloads (an automatic process that doesn't require anyone's approval).

[Heartofice]

What happens when demand massively outstrips supply for porn, as I assume would happen if everyone was having to apply for permits for government sanctioned porn. 

[OldGimletEye]

27 minutes ago, felice said:

If people wanted to be paid to make porn, they'd need to apply for funding; assuming the people don't elect a government that objects on moral grounds or under-funds the arts, getting the funding approved shouldn't be a problem, since there will certainly be demand for it. Or alternatively, they make it for free, but get paid retroactively based on share of downloads (an automatic process that doesn't require anyone's approval).

1. How does the government evaluate investment projects? By political preference? By computing the NPV of projects? Will the government have to hire Financial Analyst to estimate the viability of its porn investments?

2. I'm not in the porn business, so I'm not intimately knowledgeable about porn finance, but it seems to me that very little capital is needed to start making it. Suppose somebody buys a camera (if they are allowed by the central committee) and starts making it? Does that need central committee approval too?

3. How about the people that buy it? Do they need clearance before buying it?

4. At the beginning of every month does everyone have to declare their porn consumption plans?

5. Will the government committee decide if somebody works as a porn star or an accountant?

[felice]

12 hours ago, Alarich II said:

So the assumption is that although you have a democratic system, a pro-capitalism party cannot ever take over from you, whereas you can take over from pro-capitalist parties and hang on to power for ever. But of course there will be different parties, they'll just never disagree with your system.

I'm envisaging the reverse of the current situation in the US, where there are different parties free to advocate for whatever policies they like, but the idea of an actively anticapitalist party coming to power is virtually unthinkable. It's not just outside the Overton window, it's down the street, across town, and locked in the basement of a condemned building. How to achieve such a flip in public opinion is another matter, but there's no point discussing that until we agree it's desirable.

12 hours ago, Alarich II said:

And businesses will operate like before, "marked-based". But, since they are government-owned, they "just" need to have their investments approved. By goverment people, of course - who else to speak for the people? -, with plenty of discretion when considering their application. Who will - of course - prioritise the public good over profit.

A whole lot of different people. Technically government employees, yes, but so is everyone else. I don't see any reason for them to be any worse or more corrupt than the venture capitalists and bank managers we have now. And if your application is rejected by one, you can resubmit it for consideration by someone else.

[DMC]

46 minutes ago, felice said:

If people wanted to be paid to make porn, they'd need to apply for funding; assuming the people don't elect a government that objects on moral grounds or under-funds the arts, getting the funding approved shouldn't be a problem, since there will certainly be demand for it.

Pretty sure most of the Republican party already thinks the NEA funds porn.

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Alarich II said:

The point is that you can optimize the status quo and some small, incrementral innovation will come with that. But the big game changers do not come simply by optimizing the status quo.

But the point isn't to "optimize the status quo," the point is to better use resources (raw materials especially) and to have a lesser impact on our environment.
Such a goal obviously places more value on innovation, not less. Even within the current structure this is already the case. Why would collective oversight make such value disappear?

Quote

The necessary assumption being that, if we have all available data, then this is all we need to know.

I don't see why available data would be the alpha and the omega of production of goods... (?). Of course, available data is the starting point to modelize everything, but if your goal is optimisation, then you want to be constantly exploring new methods of production to reduce waste.

And of course, you are also constantly discussing how to improve humans' positive liberties, their autonomy, because more democracy means more ideas in the public sphere, more experiments... more innovation. 

I'm genuinely confused as to why you would assume the very opposite.

1 hour ago, Alarich II said:

So what the distrust of the state brings to the table is perspective and balance;

Except it really doesn't. Basing your view of government on that of Eastern Germany or North Korea is as if I were constantly referring to Philip Morris and Exxon to discuss the role of corporations and markets.
Taking the worst of an organisational structure as a standard isn't "balanced." At best it's a soundbite for fruitless internet discussions... or to make internet discussions fruitless.

Anyway, you seem to have this idea that I want "the state and the corporation [to] become one" but actually that is not the case (don't think I said anything like that). Individual corporations would be fine as separate entities, either remaining as they are, developing stakeholding, or becoming cooperatives. The collective control over the means of production does not automatically entail central state planification.
What I'm really defending is the people becoming the government, i.e. people having means to do much of the governing themselves, through technology. It is the very opposite of the movements you seem to have in mind that claimed to be "communist" and implemented the economic changes without the political ones. Otoh I am keeping the final objective in mind... and that is, according to "classical" communism, the abolition of the state, not its strengthening.

So what I have in mind is -for example- the people voting on major regulations or resource allocation through electronic referendums. Because reducing our carbon footprint is urgent and may entail adapting our way of life, the most difficult decisions should be taken collectively, in order to preserve our sense of community and to understand our interdependence. The alternative, as it is, is governments beholden to corporate interests either doing nothing, or even actively supporting the destruction of our environment.

It takes a truly addled mind to accuse my perspective of being the dangerous one, to present me as wanting to take away your porn with democratic committees (seriously?), or to present me as wanting to increase the power of the state - when the objective is actually its evisceration.

 

1 hour ago, Alarich II said:

The solution, that the state and the corporation become one, in the hope that the state will transform the corporation more than the other way round, is very unlikely to work and we've seen real live states fail with that kind of system, where the policing power of the state and the capitalist monopoly become one.

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

 the good thing about corporations is that they're relatively small so it makes them easier to push around with laws

These arguments smack of the 1990s to me. We're in 2020, when corporations hold sway over governments, not the other way around.

 

[felice]

6 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

1. How does the government evaluate investment projects? By political preference? By computing the NPV of projects? Will the government have to hire Financial Analyst to estimate the viability of its porn investments?

Start off with exactly the same sorts of evaluations investors do now. Then add in public good considerations, eg accounting for externalities like effect on climate change. And giving savings for the public the same weight as profit for the company - eg if a widget manufacturer figures out a way to make indestructible widgets, and could make enough to fulfil all humanity's widget needs for the next century by the end of the year, that becomes a good thing that the shareholders are delighted by, rather than a potential disaster for the company (and all the staff would be guaranteed their full pay after the factory closes down, until they find new jobs). Some of the factors to be considered would be political issues, yes - and they'd be democratically determined. You can potentially have far more democracy under communism than under capitalism, where a great many decisions are made by unaccountable individuals whose only motivation is maximising private profit.

Data creation (including but not limited to porn) would ideally not be required to generate any kind of direct financial return, people would just need to want it. One option is a subsidised crowdfunding system; put up a proposal, and if the general public are willing to contribute X% of the required funding, the government automatically provides the rest. The value of X would depend on how much the government currently in power allocates to the data fund, and the amount of money the public are putting in (since that affects how quickly the fund gets used up). Some data creation would also be funded directly as being in the public interest.

Actually, there's no need to restrict it to data; crowdfunding could become standard for new physical products, too. The subsidy part wouldn't be needed in that case, since physical products can be expected to cover costs through sales. Though unlike current crowdfunding platforms, there should be some kind of official evaluation of the people making the proposal and whether they have the skills needed to pull it off (a failed evaluation could result in a "buyer beware" warning on the project, rather than outright rejection).

6 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

2. I'm not in the porn business, so I'm not intimately knowledgeable about porn finance, but it seems to me that very little capital is needed to start making it. Suppose somebody buys a camera (if they are allowed by the central committee) and starts making it? Does that need central committee approval too?

As long as they're not filming and publishing anything illegal, no, of course not. There are laws about such things under capitalism too, and no reason they'd need to change.

6 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

3. How about the people that buy it? Do they need clearance before buying it?

Of course not. They can buy anything that's legal to buy, just as they can now.

6 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

4. At the beginning of every month does everyone have to declare their porn consumption plans?

Of course not. People just download whatever they want to download when they want to download it; anonymously if they wish.

6 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

5. Will the government committee decide if somebody works as a porn star or an accountant?

Of course not, people can apply for whatever jobs they want just as they do now.

[Altherion]

7 hours ago, Rippounet said:

These arguments smack of the 1990s to me. We're in 2020, when corporations hold sway over governments, not the other way around.

Thus far, the influence of corporations has been cyclical. The ones today are powerful, but not nearly as powerful as, say, the robber barons of the Gilded Age. Of course, it is possible that the system goes permanently out of kilter and the cycle does not repeat, but even as it stands, it's much easier for Westerners to tame their corporations than, say, the Chinese to tame their government.

43 minutes ago, felice said:

Of course not, people can apply for whatever jobs they want just as they do now.

You didn't actually answer the question: people can apply for any job, but who gets to make the selection and who sets the salaries? The Soviet Union struggled with this and ultimately came up with a mix of what were effectively guilds and party-appointed fiefdoms (it worked, but it didn't work well). China eventually gave up on making a command economy work and switched to a market economy overseen by the party.