New Communism: Need for a New Ideology

[Shahil]

Okay, going to be brief but...

I really think that the world needs a new communism. WHY?? okay, capitalism sucks (don't argue that - just with the proliferation of poverty and lack of caring for one another, any argument ends up shot down.) Also, there is no alternative. Communism, as history has dictated, has not worked (no matter how hard us hardline communist purist try to make ourselves believe the contrary, communism did fail.) Anyway, isn't there a need for something new? otherwise, this world is going to "destruct." Capitalism is doing sin to the world - especially with George W. doing all the wrong things - and the would be revolutionaries have no real ideology to follow. We seriously need a new Marx or Engels?

Any ideas on that?

 

[jimmy p]

There are going to be flaws in any way of running a country, capitalism has flaws, communism has flaws, utilitarianism has flaws...etc. In England we are being run by a 'social' party. There major flaw is that they don't give a crap what the people want. The ways of running countries has to be revised. Maybe if a new form of communism was made, it would work...for a while. It's never going please everyone.

 

[The_Professional]

What kind of Communism? how can we ensure that this new system will be fair to everyone? what checks and balances are needed to prevent abuse? Give me some specifics.

Personally, Bush may have done some wrong things, but he is not to blame for everything, after all he has political advisers who helps him make decisions and other factors as well..

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Shahil
(don't argue that - just with the proliferation of poverty and lack of caring for one another, any argument ends up shot down.)

There will always be poor. Distribution alone dictates that. So that's a moot point. Not a product of capitalism.

Capitalism does not proliferate poverty, but again, a moot point as the world is not capitalistic - only certain areas.

Next, don't try to be constructive and tell others "don't argue that". You simply show that you are unable to debate the point, and are afraid of it.

Now, when does capitalism stop others from caring? Don't give me some bull**** rhetoric about GW Bush, prove specifics to me.

 

[master_coda]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Now, when does capitalism stop others from caring?

Well, capitalism does tend to encourage the point of view that the outcome of your life is determined entirely by you. It's much easier to not care about people being poor when you think it's their fault.

Of course, any economic system where you play a significant part in determining your own fate is going to have that problem.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Shahil
I really think that the world needs a new communism. WHY?? okay, capitalism sucks (don't argue that - just with the proliferation of poverty and lack of caring for one another, any argument ends up shot down.)

Ok, your first disagreement with capitalism is flat wrong, but I won't argue it. It is what it is. If you want though, you can read real data on the subject. Poverty proliferation for the most part is not a matter of opinion, its primary interpretation of real data.

Anyway, for your point I don't think we so much need a "new communism" as we need something that takes the best of both communism and capitalism. And most countries are already moving toward something in the middle. The US is light years less capitalistic than when the founding fathers wrote the constitution. Most of Europe these days is just as communist as they are capitalist.

I don't believe either the US nor Europe has it right, largely because they go too far, but nevertheless, its a whole lot better than "pure" communism.

 

[GENIERE]

What was wrong with the old communism?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There was a classic example of Socialism vs Capitalism seen when the Berlin wall came down. A news crew happened to be filming the construction of a primary road that would unite the East and West. On the West side we saw a crew of perhaps a dozen people - about three people standing around doing nothing, presumably supervisors or leads, and about 9 people working. On the East side we saw more like 9 supervisors and 3 workers. This is what happens when there is no competition to drive a system towards efficiency. One essential element of capitalism's success is competition.

I feel that the real culprit here is not strictly capitalism, rather it is the structure of the corporation and now the multinational corporation. This nebulous entity effectively [mostly] removes personal responsibility from the decision making process. One favorite reason to incorporate is so that one can’t personally be sued! This is a favorite ditch for most businesses. Then, in large companies the stock holders don’t really understand what makes their stocks profitable but they expect it to be so. They don’t automatically know if their profits happen come at the expense of children in forced labor, or the people and ecology of Valdez, Alaska, or at the expense of the people of Bhopal, India. The CEO answers to the board of directors who then answer to the stockholders; strictly as a function of economics. Everyone else answers to the CEO. It seems to me that the decision making process has tunnel vision by design.

Here is an example of the corporation in action. I was involved in the first days and evolution of mobile imaging technology. We had busses that parked at a given hospital for some number of hours per week. Patients were wheeled out on gurneys and loaded onto a lift gate that rose to about four feet above ground level for entry into the scanner room. For years any idiot could see that the safety rails on the lift gate were inadequate. For years a large number of personnel complained that some critical patient was going to roll off of the lift gate and land on his or her head.

To correct this situation required a very small expense as compared to the cost of the scanner's maintenance and service - one circuit board could cost in excess of ten thousand dollars [we blew them almost daily at times]. All that we needed were some sturdy safety rails - maybe 100LBs worth of aluminum and some cutting and welding. Well, it was not enough when one, then two, then three people did roll of the gate and get injured, it was only when someone was killed that action was finally taken. Heck, what did our idiot CEO care? He had no personal responsibility in this decision...though it was completely his to make. I think he should have been put in jail for manslaughter but he was protected by the corporation. Oh yes, the next day safety rails became mandatory on all units…immediately! How about that? The only reason that this was now important was that the cost of the law suit was greater than the cost of safety rails.

While at the next company that I worked with...still mobile imaging, I told the president many times that his operators were driving his 25 ton busses like they were sports cars. He didn't want to hear it - we had schedules to meet! I was convinced that he wanted them to drive that way and the drivers clearly felt the pressure to do so. Only when one of his drivers rear ended an old lady and killed her did we institute a driver training program and safety evaluations. Again, only in retrospect is it seen that the cost of the law suit was greater than the cost of safety. Again, the CEO has the luxury of pushing the limits for profits paid for with someone elses life.

 

[Zero]

Some people seem to think that there is a magic pill that will solve every problem. Some people worship capitalism, others communism, and people on both extremes are full of crap.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I feel that the real culprit here is not strictly capitalism, rather it is the structure of the corporation and now the multinational corporation. This nebulous entity effectively [mostly] removes personal responsibility from the decision making process.

This is my primary issue with capitalism. The Sherman act helped, but clearly more needs to be done to reign in large corporations.

I'm not sure how your examples really are relevant to capitalism though: the CEOs in question were just plain stupid and their actions weren't helping their companies, they were hurting them or setting them up to be hurt. Now, this may be due to the fact that the average CEO doesn't last too long and as a result is short-sighted, but either way, being short-sighted is a personal flaw in the CEO. Granted, regulation that mandates personal responsibility would help, but I think technically it already exists (you can try a CEO for murder if you want) - its just really hard to prove the chain of causality.

 

[Njorl]

Actually, the first few lawsuits are usually not too expensive, especially if you kill someone who is already sick. In the first few cases, you usually only pay real damages, and possibly pain and suffering. The big lawsuits only come with repeated negligence, when companies get hit with punative damages. It is one of the biggest reasons to oppose tort reform. Sometimes lethal negligence is good business. It is only punative damages that stop these practices.

Njorl

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I'm not sure how your examples really are relevant to capitalism though: the CEOs in question were just plain stupid and their actions weren't helping their companies, they were hurting them or setting them up to be hurt. Now, this may be due to the fact that the average CEO doesn't last too long and as a result is short-sighted, but either way, being short-sighted is a personal flaw in the CEO. Granted, regulation that mandates personal responsibility would help, but I think technically it already exists (you can try a CEO for murder if you want) - its just really hard to prove the chain of causality.

I saw these as examples of how bad "business as usual" can be masked by economic concerns within the coporate structure. I'm sure that our CEO didn't mean to kill anyone, but he had other proprieties - investors. These were his highest priority. Also I agree that the chain of causality and responsibility is the issue in corporations. Somehow it becomes near to impossible hold anyone directly accountable for [knowingly] negligent decisions.


Btw, Tsunami thinks the patient was only seriously injured [we met while working for this company]. This all took place 20 years ago, but I am sure that a patient was killed in Florida. I think Tsunami was just too busy radiating her victims and laughing madly.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Njorl
Sometimes lethal negligence is good business.

Or even more than sometimes?

 

[Tsu]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I think Tsunami was just too busy radiating her victims and laughing madly.

Yes, delivering ionizing radiation to unsuspecting victims does that to me a LOT! (Mom and Dad tell me I was born like this, but I have to wonder if it might not BE the radiation...)

 

[wasteofo2]

Aren't there a lot of countries in Europe which have silently and peacefully slid into a very stable socialism or are in the process right now? Countries like Switzerland for example.

 

[Shahil]

BTW - it seems that these threads always end up NOT being about the intended topic.

Anyway...

Originally posted by GENIERE
What was wrong with the old communism?

I agree in a way BUT the way communism has panned out is not a good advertisment for its usage as the primary political model.

Anyway...

I think Ivan Seeking really got on to something - the problem with a capitalist system is not the free market thing which dictates that you are what you make of yourself, but the fact that CARE takes a back seat.

I seriously think that if a system could be worked out where kindness and ETHICS is mixed with business tactics, a political system that would benefit all would be produced.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Shahil
the problem with a capitalist system is not the free market thing which dictates that you are what you make of yourself, but the fact that CARE takes a back seat.

Capitalism in practice forces people to care about themselves. Communism in theory rides on the fact that people care about the country above all else. And communism in reality makes people care about virtually nothing.

 

[Zero]

Russ, I think the point he was trying to make is that pure capitalism forces you ro care about nothing but yourself.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
Russ, I think the point he was trying to make is that pure capitalism forces you ro care about nothing but yourself.

That's only true if you CHOOSE to 1> care only about monetary success 2> Are not producing enough of said money to live above your goals.

I donate money, I buy homeless guys lunch - why? Not because some socialist program taught me how, but because I make enough and choose to do so.

Unfettered capitalism only faults in keeping competition alive (as monopolies develop) and not accounting for people turning into criminals when they become poor (through their own means, or born into it)

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
That's only true if you CHOOSE to 1> care only about monetary success 2> Are not producing enough of said money to live above your goals.

I donate money, I buy homeless guys lunch - why? Not because some socialist program taught me how, but because I make enough and choose to do so.

Unfettered capitalism only faults in keeping competition alive (as monopolies develop) and not accounting for people turning into criminals when they become poor (through their own means, or born into it)

Don't forget the part where an aristocracy forms, takes over the government, and ruins it all for the rest of us...which is a flaw of both pure capitalism and communism.

 

[Shahil]

Originally posted by Zero
Don't forget the part where an aristocracy forms, takes over the government, and ruins it all for the rest of us...which is a flaw of both pure capitalism and communism.

I think Zero got it quite right here. The aristocracy is where both systems fail miserably. I think history will agree that its this class that "causes" (in lieu of a better word!) that is the root of all that the masses suffer from. But, again, you really can't get rid of them...

Originally posted by russ_watters
And communism in reality makes people care about virtually nothing.

[?] [?] [?] [?]

I disagree? Why is caring caring for your country mean that you care for "virtually nothing?"

In a true communist system, it's your country that provides you with almost everything. So, in fact, you should care about it more than anything!

 

[Njorl]

I always wonder why people ridicule Marx for not being perfect, but not Adam Smith. Smith's capitalism was a dismal failure before Marx wrote his first pamphlet. Had we tried living by the gospel according to Smith during the great depression, our discussion today would be, "We need a new capitalism. This communism we live in is no good." Most Nobel prizes in economics are given for people making corrections to Smith's flawed theories. I suppose it was because Smith was a nice guy, and Marx was an arrogant know-it-all.

The truth is we do have a new communism. In Sweden, they have very high taxes and very generous social services. I don't think there is communal ownership of businesses on a large scale, but there are a fair number of state industries. Japan, up until recently, practiced what was essentially corporate socialism. When you worked for a company, your needs were essentially guaranteed for life. Some employees made more than others, obviously, but the corporation took a paternal and genuine interest in the employees. You see these things in varying degrees throughout the world.

Njorl

 

[motai]

Originally posted by Njorl
The truth is we do have a new communism. In Sweden, they have very high taxes and very generous social services. I don't think there is communal ownership of businesses on a large scale, but there are a fair number of state industries. Japan, up until recently, practiced what was essentially corporate socialism. When you worked for a company, your needs were essentially guaranteed for life. Some employees made more than others, obviously, but the corporation took a paternal and genuine interest in the employees. You see these things in varying degrees throughout the world.

That doesn't happen here in America. The corporation no longer cares about their workers, and they ruthlessly out-source their jobs to foriegn countries so they won't have to pay less. It is a cascading effect too: Corporation outsources to save money, competitor corporation sees what the first corproration did and does the same thing, until the entire industry is shipped overseas. Now anything that can be put together or done in another country is fair game.

Corporations are getting bigger, monopolizing themselves despite the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and hiding under amendments to protect themselves. Capitalism has failed in this respect, and it has probably gotten to a point where it cannot be reversed (big business probably has a strangle hold on the government).

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Shahil
I disagree? Why is caring caring for your country mean that you care for "virtually nothing?"

No, I said in reality because in reality, Soviets cared little about their country because their country cared little for them.

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by motai
That doesn't happen here in America. The corporation no longer cares about their workers, and they ruthlessly out-source their jobs to foriegn countries so they won't have to pay less. It is a cascading effect too: Corporation outsources to save money, competitor corporation sees what the first corproration did and does the same thing, until the entire industry is shipped overseas. Now anything that can be put together or done in another country is fair game.

Corporations are getting bigger, monopolizing themselves despite the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and hiding under amendments to protect themselves. Capitalism has failed in this respect, and it has probably gotten to a point where it cannot be reversed (big business probably has a strangle hold on the government).

For that, you need international labor unions. That won't happen until pay begins to equalize somewhat between countries. Then, when there are no international winners and losers amongst workers, playing them off one against the other won't be as easy.

Njorl

 

[master_coda]

Originally posted by russ_watters
No, I said in reality because in reality, Soviets cared little about their country because their country cared little for them.

On the contrary, Soviets cared for their country as much as any other people. Nationalism is a virus that infects almost every country regardless of living conditions or ideology.

Any system in practice forces people to care about themselves. Because self-preservation is a basic human instinct. An economic system isn't going to change that in the space of a few hundred years.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by master_coda
On the contrary, Soviets cared for their country as much as any other people. Nationalism is a virus that infects almost every country regardless of living conditions or ideology.

Any system in practice forces people to care about themselves. Because self-preservation is a basic human instinct. An economic system isn't going to change that in the space of a few hundred years.

Well, I'm not going to do the patriotism vs nationalism debate again, but the quality of the products and services turned out by the USSR was low for a reason: people didn't care because they didn't get paid more or treated better for turning out quality.

But yes, people will always care about themselves first because its human nature - which is part of why communism failed and capitalism succeeded. Capitalism feeds on human nature while communism attempts to suppress it.

 

[master_coda]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Well, I'm not going to do the patriotism vs nationalism debate again, but the quality of the products and services turned out by the USSR was low for a reason: people didn't care because they didn't get paid more or treated better for turning out quality.

Capitalism hardly encourages one to make the best product you can. It encourages you to make a product that's "good enough".

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by master_coda
Capitalism hardly encourages one to make the best product you can. It encourages you to make a product that's "good enough".

In a free market, "good enough" is "better than everyone else's."

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Capitalism in practice forces people to care about themselves. Communism in theory rides on the fact that people care about the country above all else. And communism in reality makes people care about virtually nothing.

The problem is that people didn't see benefits from their work. In a true communism, the people would see the fruits of their labor.

I am not here to advocate communism, but I notice that there are some great lies about communism. The Soviet Union never saw communism. It just had a centralized economy. You still had the upper classes benefitting from the work of the many. Many people point to the failure of the Soviet Union as proof that Marx was wrong, yet what Marx talked about was never attempted by the Soviet Union.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
In a free market, "good enough" is "better than everyone else's."

Good enough is the one that sells the best. This may relate more to good marketing rather than a good product. This could relate more to false or misleading claims, or even sneaky financial or business maneuvers etc. For example, a large company can just absorb losses for a time in order to run the competition out of business. Look at the garbage on TV that sells by the boat load.

I think this is one great weakness of a free market: The money spent on advertising is just as, or even much more important that the money spent on product value. I think the internet could be the great equalizer in this respect.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The point of the free market is that the entrepreneurs and capitalists do whatever they want, without limitation, and the result is the "best" ranges of goods at the "best" prices. It's all about goods, and not at all about people.

What failed in Russia was not Marxism. Lenin postulated that Russia was too primitive to go directly to Communism, because "the dialectic" required a society to first go through capitalism to reach that goal - "historical necessity". So Lenin introduced state capitalism, and Stalin and his successors carried it out. And it didn't work, because state run capitalism is almost a denial in terms. There was also the problem that the "Vanguard party" became corrupt, which Marx could have predicted for them.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
For example, a large company can just absorb losses for a time in order to run the competition out of business.

Actually, this practice is illegal against under the sherman antitrust law.


" any combination, contract or conspiracy in restraint of trade. This may include any arrangement between two competitors as to establishment of minimum prices, allocation of geographical or product markets, refusals to deal or boycotts. In addition, one enterprise acting alone, if it monopolizes or attempts to monopolize with a likely probability of success and engages in certain "predatory practices" may, by itself, violate one or more antitrust laws. An inappropriate predatory practice may include pricing a product below cost to drive out competitors, thereby creating the ability to later increase prices to highly profitable levels in the absence of competition"

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
In a free market, "good enough" is "better than everyone else's."

No, it can also mean 'cheaper than everything else'. Capitalism never guarantees quality, except in right-wing Bizarro World.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Actually, this practice is illegal against under the sherman antitrust law.


" any combination, contract or conspiracy in restraint of trade. This may include any arrangement between two competitors as to establishment of minimum prices, allocation of geographical or product markets, refusals to deal or boycotts. In addition, one enterprise acting alone, if it monopolizes or attempts to monopolize with a likely probability of success and engages in certain "predatory practices" may, by itself, violate one or more antitrust laws. An inappropriate predatory practice may include pricing a product below cost to drive out competitors, thereby creating the ability to later increase prices to highly profitable levels in the absence of competition"

It still goes on...Walmart is built on practices that just barely manage to squeak by the regulations(aided by bribing politicians, of course)