This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Psychological concept or theory on majority and minority
- Biology a level question - Ecology
- Succession/variation bio aqa
- Coventry University ba course
- Communication
- Is it time to rethink our criminal justice system and 'do things differently'?
- UAL Diagnostic Foundation
- 5 careers for criminology and criminal behaviour graduates
- What is an academic poster?
- Why you should consider joining a society
- Sheffield Accomodation - Studios at Wimberry, Windgather and Kinder
- What are your thoughts on rainbow washing?
- Media And Communications at SOAS
- How is the LGBTQ+ community like at UCL?
- Can I do ICT Apprenticeship
- HSC LEVLE 3 UNIT 5 LEARNING AIM B/C D2 help
- Are communists stupid?
- Cost of Living Crisis: Things you haven't heard until now
- Stuck on Pre Reg pharmacy choices - please advice
- Hospital Pharmacist
communism
Scroll to see replies
Jonatan
The average costs of developing a new medical drug can exceed several billion pounds sterling. If you prohibit large private boddies these investments simply won't be made.
If you allow large boddies which are somehow governed by the workers, then in reality what you have is political power centralised to those who are able to get most support from the population.
Furthermore, that the workers has played a part in the decision making within a firm does not imply that the outcome will work in the interest of its workers. If that was teh case then the American , British and French givernments would work in the interest of its population.
Also, the problem with a democracy is that notoriously innefficient and incopmpetent leaders may be elected simply by winning the support of the voters.
If a large company is to maintain efficient use of resources, then decision making must not be reduced to wage receiving popularism. A firm where all the workers vote for larger wages and less work would quickly lose its economical balance and go bankrupt.
The foreign debt situation led to the crisis and the crisis caused a profound change in Argentina’s manufacturing sector. The economic crash of December 2001forced the owners of many Argentine factories to either abandon their factories or declare bankruptcy. The workers at these factories responded by expropriating the factories and running the facilities themselves. Two factories in particular are representative of the more than 200 factories that have been ‘recuperated’ by the workers.(43) The factories, the Brukman textile factory and the Zanón Ceramics Factory, demonstrate the challenges the workers faced in claiming the factories and the success they enjoyed by working with their communities to keep the factories and operating them for the benefit of their respective communities. Also it must be noted that although these 200 reclaimed factories employ fewer than 20,000 workers the benefits such industries bring to their communities and the examples they set in a new way of doing business makes the impact of these institutions far greater than their numbers would suggest.
The situation of the Buenos Aires based Brukman factory demonstrates what determined workers can accomplish with the support of their community and sympathizers. The Brukman textile factory saw its nominal owners abandon the factory in December of 2001. In their absence the workers resumed production on their own on the 18th of December 2001 as a cooperative. The workers then by trial and error established committees to take the place of the administrators and managers, who left with the owners. As these committees gained experience they paid off many of the debts incurred under previous ownership and restored the business to profitability.(44) Once the workers showed the factory could again be productive the previous owners attempted to evict the workers from the factory by having over 300 police officers prevent the workers from entering the factory on April 18th 2003.(45) Immediately after the eviction the sympathizers of the Brukman workers were notified of what occurred and soon crowds of “workers from other factories, neighborhood assemblies, student organizations, and left-wing political parties” arrived to confront the police.(46) This crowd faced police repression for three days refusing to leave until the police left and the workers were allowed to return to their factory.(47) Thus began a tense stand off with the police while the workers navigated the legal system to legally claim the factory with the help of the National Movement of Recuperated Factories (MFNR).(48) Then after eight months of struggle the Brukman workers with the assistance of their MFNR allies succeeded in persuading the city government of Buenos Aires to expropriate the factory and turn that facility over to the workers in a ‘gratuitous bailment’ where the workers will use and maintain the installations without fee.(49) The case of the Brukman factory demonstrated the extent to which the upper classes in Argentina held influence, and that a community acting in solidarity could legally counter that influence for the betterment of the impoverished in that community and Argentine society as a whole.
While the Brukman factory epitomized the class conflict that accompanied expropriation of factories, the Zanón Ceramics Factory, in Neuquén, demonstrated how a worker run factory could contribute to the community. Unlike the Brukman factory, Zanón was expropriated in October of 2001, prior to the economic crisis of December of 2001. Technically what the Zanón workers did was illegal and an outstanding order to evict the workers is in place, but the order will not be enforced because many of the influential organizations in the community such as the teacher’s and petroleum workers’ unions as well as the Catholic Church have threatened a general strike if the police attempt to execute the order.(50) Considering what happened when the government attempted to evict the Brukman workers, should the government take action against the Zanón factory then the likelihood of the community carrying out its threatened general strike would be quite high. Using the same management and administration by committee approach as the Brukman workers the Zanón workers began the process of restarting production and managed to resume production on March 2, 2002.(51) Although the production levels were low initially within a year the factory was producing fifty percent more than before the takeover because the workers implemented their ideas for improving production and they brought in technical assistance from the local university.(52) The bonds between the community and the factory workers are such that they have mutually beneficial arrangements to provide each other with products and services. This community relationship was seen when the factory workers donated tiles to local community centers and hospitals in exchange the nurses union donates a nurse to each work shift to ensure the health of the workers. Also the workers used their political influence and organization to support local native peoples, who then donate clay from their lands to the factory.(53) The Zanón workers demonstrated this political activism during the protests following the decision to disburse unemployment benefits via magnetic strip cards when many of the workers took part in the protests in solidarity with the piqueteros.(54) Thus the Zanón Ceramics Factory made itself an integral part of the local community by benefiting as well as supporting the community and in turn received benefits from the community. This type of business relationship holds enormous potential and as such it is dangerous to the established ways of doing business.
(Sources: http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2004/4/17/162228/629, many stories about Brukman and Zanon can be found on www.indymedia.org)
Complete direct democracy is efficient in ensuring that a government takes the population into consideration when making decisions, but it cannot ensure that decisions will benefit the people in the long run.
carldaman
Marx couldn't have mixed communism as he, along with Engels (don't ask me how this works exactly), invented communism.
Weejimmie
Wrong. There had been earlier communistic .movements- most notably, it seems, the early christians. Marx claimed to have devised a scientific rationale for socialism and communism.
Yes, but Carl means Marx invented communism as we know it today. He didn't 'mix it' with other movements as he was attempting to discover a whole knew scientific creed.
wiwarin_mir
True communism can never be achieved, there will always be someone at the top who will be ruling.
Whilst the revolutions are still taking place, that is. Once the people come to realise how to live together then the utopian ideal is reached and pure communism can take place, which ultimately does not rely on a leader because the people all work together. This does take a lot of time.
carldaman
Without a large private market, such investments will not need to be made. The costs are only so high because of people who earn obscenely high wages and the huge profits that pharmaceutical companies make. If the pharm comapnies were publicly owned, then I reckon costs would drop and profit would not be an issue.
WRONG! The opportunity cost of producing a good doesnt drop merely because you change the system. It takes a certain input to generate an output. The main costs of developing drugs like insulin lies in the factors of production. The people who earn the "obscenely high wages" is not the bottleneck. Eaven if you could decrease the costs with 70% by cutting administrative wages (btw, I would like to see the communistic system which would actually decrease administrative costs) the investment required is still enourmous. Swedens total expenditure on medical research, mainly covered by private investments, ammounts to hundred millions of pounds per year; and that is in a country with about 9 million people. In the end the extreme investment costs needed to bring forward the development of these drugs will simply not be covered by a communistic system. Short run merit goods and welfare benefits will be prioritised in front of long-term investments because it benefits the workers immediately and thus helps promoting political popularity. Spending money on cancer research which may not yield fruit within 25 years simply doesnt give the same political popularity as increasing unemployment benefits.
carldaman
Or it could if you actually trusted the workers. I have a feeling that knows who know corporate repression best will adapt to co-operative society.
Or it could if you actually trusted the workers. I have a feeling that knows who know corporate repression best will adapt to co-operative society.
Which worker has heard about the concept of a production possibility frontier? Which worker has any clue about how a decrease in the interest rate will affect investment in the manufacture of goods with positive externalities? The population simply doesnt have the background knowledge to make an educated decision on economical questions and thus the outcome of a democratic election will be reduced to the persuasiveness of the different interest groups.
Jonatan
Which worker has heard about the concept of a production possibility frontier? Which worker has any clue about how a decrease in the interest rate will affect investment in the manufacture of goods with positive externalities? The population simply doesnt have the background knowledge to make an educated decision on economical questions and thus the outcome of a democratic election will be reduced to the persuasiveness of the different interest groups.
Did you even read what I wrote? In a truly communist society the concept of modern capitalist economics will be defunct, useless. Stop trying to apply free market economics to communism, and understand that communism relies on low level trade and localised industry, not global production and inflation/interest rates. You completely fail to grasp that the worker is capable of making an informed decision and in the long term democratic running of the means of production is possible, as demonstrated by Brukman and especially Zanon.
Just another point-I agree that argument over large capital projects is difficult to reconcile with communism. I'll think about it and get back to you.
Jonatan
Which worker has heard about the concept of a production possibility frontier? Which worker has any clue about how a decrease in the interest rate will affect investment in the manufacture of goods with positive externalities? The population simply doesnt have the background knowledge to make an educated decision on economical questions and thus the outcome of a democratic election will be reduced to the persuasiveness of the different interest groups.
Arent you going to become a worker? I'm guessing by what you said above that you know what a PPF is.
kingslaw
Arent you going to become a worker? I'm guessing by what you said above that you know what a PPF is.
To put it this way: I would not eaven considder trying to decide where to set the central banks interest rate, and I would definately not want a direct vote to decide. This despite of the fact that I have studied Economics for teh last two years. The majority of teh population has not studied economics. Regardless whether you like it or not, many delecate decisions a leadership will face requires a great deal of background education and competense, and there is no way you can educate the entire labour force to understand all these evaluations. It is necessary to have quite some specialisation in the administration of teh country and thus direct voting on economical decisions is likely to result in very inaccurate and inapropriate decisions being made. Im not saying todays system is particularily ideal either, but direct voting is only preferable for decisions which directly concern the nations population. Personally I am uncertain whether it is a good idea to have public voting regarding questions such as the European common currency or the EU constitution.
carldaman
Did you even read what I wrote? In a truly communist society the concept of modern capitalist economics will be defunct, useless. Stop trying to apply free market economics to communism, and understand that communism relies on low level trade and localised industry, not global production and inflation/interest rates. You completely fail to grasp that the worker is capable of making an informed decision and in the long term democratic running of the means of production is possible, as demonstrated by Brukman and especially Zanon.
Just another point-I agree that argument over large capital projects is difficult to reconcile with communism. I'll think about it and get back to you.
Just another point-I agree that argument over large capital projects is difficult to reconcile with communism. I'll think about it and get back to you.
That you disregard the basic concepts of economics does not negate their existance. Every decision has a trade off, though many communists fail to understand this. Producing a good requires a certain input. You cant just pull magic bunnies up your hat, or new medecines out of your arse. Large scale production is crucial in many production chains. A localised industry would simply not have the enterprise necessary to construct the silicon chips used in everyday computers. It doesnt matter if you say that communism is not free market economy, you still cant boil french onion soup with a rock as your only ingridient.
carldaman
Which is why I said I'd have a think about the problem of large capital projects, and get back to you on it.
In other words, you have no idea how the most critical flaw of communism can be dealt with?
Oh, btw, regarding private vs state funded projects. This is on the launch of SpaceShipOne, the first private craft to carry a man into space.
The Economist
SpaceShipOne is a private effort that has cost a mere $20m. For that NASA would barely launch a kite, let alone an astronaut. - The Economist June 26th 2004 page 17
SpaceShipOne is a private effort that has cost a mere $20m. For that NASA would barely launch a kite, let alone an astronaut. - The Economist June 26th 2004 page 17
Jonatan
In other words, you have no idea how the most critical flaw of communism can be dealt with?
Not yet. Perhaps I will be the next great thinker on the subject
Anyway, I've read very little Marx or Engels. Perhaps if I knew more I could give you an instant answer. Unfortunately, I'm not the font of all knowledge. I don't even study your precious economics. The only reason I like communism, or perhaps more accurately socialism, is that a system such as the one we have, where four fifths of the worlds population are kept necessarliy poor so that us priveliged few can have a good time is morally abhorrent. William Foster on the other Free Market thread pointed out that free market economics is amoral. A system which imposes such social injustices on the world can only be immoral.It makes me sad that for some people the only goal is money creation, efficiency and wealth. Socialism addresses these flaws at a cost to the free market ideals, but is a more than adequate compromise between communism and capitalism.
carldaman
Not yet. Perhaps I will be the next great thinker on the subject Anyway, I've read very little Marx or Engels. Perhaps if I knew more I could give you an instant answer. Unfortunately, I'm not the font of all knowledge. I don't even study your precious economics. The only reason I like communism, or perhaps more accurately socialism, is that a system such as the one we have, where four fifths of the worlds population are kept necessarliy poor so that us priveliged few can have a good time is morally abhorrent. William Foster on the other Free Market thread pointed out that free market economics is amoral. A system which imposes such social injustices on the world can only be immoral.
It makes me sad that for some people the only goal is money creation, efficiency and wealth. Socialism addresses these flaws at a cost to the free market ideals, but is a more than adequate compromise between communism and capitalism.
Anyway, I've read very little Marx or Engels. Perhaps if I knew more I could give you an instant answer. Unfortunately, I'm not the font of all knowledge. I don't even study your precious economics. The only reason I like communism, or perhaps more accurately socialism, is that a system such as the one we have, where four fifths of the worlds population are kept necessarliy poor so that us priveliged few can have a good time is morally abhorrent. William Foster on the other Free Market thread pointed out that free market economics is amoral. A system which imposes such social injustices on the world can only be immoral.It makes me sad that for some people the only goal is money creation, efficiency and wealth. Socialism addresses these flaws at a cost to the free market ideals, but is a more than adequate compromise between communism and capitalism.
If you would take a closer look into why these peopel are poor youd see a stuning pattern. The poorest countries of teh world today are typically dictatorships with idealistic and centralised governments. Those LDCs which have managed to improve their economy and become so called NIC countries (newly industrialised countries) such as Taiwan, South Korea and South Africa are those countries which have opened their economies to foreign trade. I do not favour a system like the american one where Hospital treatment and Education is to a large extent subject to your economy and insurance policies, but it is necessary to split the economical power between private ownership and elected representatives. Prohibiting free trade will only lead to innefficient resource allocation and supllier controlled production. It is merely common sense to allow the demand for a good to determine its production. Free market economies fail mainly where you have a very unequal income distribution. You may be surprised to find out that the American income distribution is quite equal as compared to the international average. It is only when you limit the statistics to Western democracies that the US has a greatly unequal income distribution.
Jonatan
You may be surprised to find out that the American income distribution is quite equal as compared to the international average. It is only when you limit the statistics to Western democracies that the US has a greatly unequal income distribution.
Jonatan
If you would take a closer look into why these peopel are poor youd see a stuning pattern. The poorest countries of teh world today are typically dictatorships with idealistic and centralised governments. Those LDCs which have managed to improve their economy and become so called NIC countries (newly industrialised countries) such as Taiwan, South Korea and South Africa are those countries which have opened their economies to foreign trade.
You seem to assume that the countries ruled under a dictatorship automatically become poor by some sort of irresistable force. Whilst this may or may not be true, you fail to appreciate the reasons why these dictatorships arose in the first place. The urge for a dictatorship generally arises from adverse social and economic situations - such as massive unemployment, grave social dislocation, or war. In other words, the dictorship is the consequence rather than the cause of economic decline - you would be hard pushed to find a country that was prosperous before a dictatorship came to power.
Jonatan
I do not favour a system like the american one where Hospital treatment and Education is to a large extent subject to your economy and insurance policies, but it is necessary to split the economical power between private ownership and elected representatives. Prohibiting free trade will only lead to innefficient resource allocation and supllier controlled production. It is merely common sense to allow the demand for a good to determine its production. Free market economies fail mainly where you have a very unequal income distribution. You may be surprised to find out that the American income distribution is quite equal as compared to the international average. It is only when you limit the statistics to Western democracies that the US has a greatly unequal income distribution.
Yes, it is simply common sense to only produce what is demanded. I dont know why you seem to think that a planned economy wouldnt produce what is demanded. However, what a planned economy, on a decentralised basis (the mass beurocracy of the Stalinist economies was not in line with the vast majorit of Marxist beliefs) would do is take into account the interests of all the community - the consumer, the worker, the environmentalist, the economist, the local population, etc.
Although capitalist governments may claim that before embarking upon a project, they also provide such consultations, such consultations would be nothing but a folly. The concentration of economic power in the capitalists (those with the means to actually produce the good or service) practically have a monopoly on the decision - if they choose not to produce, they wont, and if they choose too, very rarely will the government stand up to such a powerful business. In a planned economy, the means with which to produce the good (and thus the power over the decision) will be with the people who are most affected by the production of such a good - the population. This means that a planned economy is by far the most democratic means of production. The people can set the level of production by balancing it out against the the opportunity costs of such a decision (which wouldnt simply be measured in monetry value as it is in a capitalist society), as well as setting the price at the optimum level, so the people who need the good the most will be able to beneift from it.
This can be contrasted with the Stalinist experience in many ways. First of all, economic planning did not take place on a decentralised basis. Decisions on the whole of the economy across the Soviet empire took place in the Kremlin. Such a centralised process of decision-making was bound to failure. The concentration of power in the small minority of Governemnt officials who were co-erced by the oppressive Soviet regime to make decisions and reports inline with the expectations of whichever dictator was in power at the time was obviously going to contradict with the main principles of planning - that the planning should be made by the people and with the interests of the people at heart. When the Soviets made economic decisions, they were ruthlessly imposed upon the people in the pursuit of Soviet international prestige and ideology (hence the crippling amounts spent on guns instead of butter). For planning to succeed, the people cannot simply be viewed as resource, as they were in the USSR, but must be seen as the decision makers themselves.
seana
communism is a utopia. In its truest form, it does not exist. As the basic instinct of man is to compete
A basic instinct of man is to compete. Another is to co-operate. We all have these instincts in different quantities. Therefore I suggest those who wish to compete should be forced into a death arena where they must fight until the death, or learn to co-operate in order to survive and escape. Then those inside will lose their competetive streak or die, and those on the outside will see what competition really does to people. Given time, co-operation will become second nature, and comptetion will die out.
Maybe.
Related discussions
- Psychological concept or theory on majority and minority
- Biology a level question - Ecology
- Succession/variation bio aqa
- Coventry University ba course
- Communication
- Is it time to rethink our criminal justice system and 'do things differently'?
- UAL Diagnostic Foundation
- 5 careers for criminology and criminal behaviour graduates
- What is an academic poster?
- Why you should consider joining a society
- Sheffield Accomodation - Studios at Wimberry, Windgather and Kinder
- What are your thoughts on rainbow washing?
- Media And Communications at SOAS
- How is the LGBTQ+ community like at UCL?
- Can I do ICT Apprenticeship
- HSC LEVLE 3 UNIT 5 LEARNING AIM B/C D2 help
- Are communists stupid?
- Cost of Living Crisis: Things you haven't heard until now
- Stuck on Pre Reg pharmacy choices - please advice
- Hospital Pharmacist
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
