Turn on thread page Beta

Question the Socialists of TSR! watch

    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    This thread is for anybody to ask questions to any socialists in the TSR Socialist Party. We will aim to get you a response as quickly as possible.

    Socialists posting in this thread should indicate how 'official' their view is. While as a party we have no official platform, you should indicate if you think your view is outside the norm for other Socialist Party members. Although it may be interesting if you point out what kind of socialist you are: democratic socialist, Trotskyist, Leninist, Left communist etc.

    Let the questioning commence!

    DMcGovern (Commissar for External Affairs)
    Mactotaur (Commissar for Internal Affairs)
    TheDefiniteArticle (Deputy Commissar)
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    How would the Socialists combat the lack of an incentive to innovate that comes with the removal of defined and enforced private property rights.

    How do the Socialists handle the fact that command economies are woefully inefficient.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    How would the Socialists combat the lack of an incentive to innovate that comes with the removal of defined and enforced private property rights.
    The idea that the drive to innovate stems from private property rights is pretty ridiculous, really. Like, if you remove the profit incentive, people are going to stop innovating? Is that the idea?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    How would the Socialists combat the lack of an incentive to innovate that comes with the removal of defined and enforced private property rights.

    You posted your comment using technology that exists only because of a chain of discoveries and insights that began with fascination-driven research in the late 19th century.

    If Balmer hadn't studied spectral lines, Planck may not have proposed the quantum. Then Bohr may not have conceived his model of the atom, which means Heisenberg and Schrödinger wouldn't have developed their formulations of quantum mechanics. That would have left Bloch without the tools he needed to understand the nature of conduction in metals, and then how would Schottky have figured out semiconductors? It's hard to imagine, then, how Bardeen, Brattain,and Schockley would have developed transistors. And without transistors, Noyceand Kilbey couldn't have produced integrated circuits.

    Almost every major technological advance of the 20th and 21st centuries originated with basic research that presented no obvious or immediate economic benefit. That means no profit motive, and hence no reason for the private sector to adequately fund it.

    What the private sector is good at is then using all that innovation that was publicly funded create consumer goods or products that have identifiable markets and potential to make lots of money (like cancer fighting drugs or iphones). People like Einstein do not become millionaires by discovering relativity. There is no one to sell his theories to and if he locked away his discoveries no one would benefit. Yet people become millionaires by making a GPS for car users based on hi discoveries. Then tech companies like Google have the cheek to avoid tax. We all pay for it, they use what we all pay for to make themselves individually uber rich, then give as little back as possible into the system that lets them get rich. From a purely pragmatic view of wanting to keep the ececosystem alive that lets companies like google exist it is beyond stupid.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    If you were to win a majority in the next election how would be PM and how would be decided ? Also who would you consider going into coalition with ?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    The idea that the drive to innovate stems from private property rights is pretty ridiculous, really. Like, if you remove the profit incentive, people are going to stop innovating? Is that the idea?
    How did we ever get fire if the caveman didn't become a millionaire when he cooked his first meal. Or the pre history proto-chemist guy who smelt metals with that fire. :rofl:

    Humans have been innovating long before capitalism and private property was a thing. In fact innovation was essential in creating the ground conditions that allowed capitalism to become a thing. Good luck getting industrialisation without Newton's laws of motion.

    Then not to mention that the profit motive can stifle innovation as well as incentavise it. People can strive for monopolies, undermine competitors, exploit entrepreneurs who reap no benefit from their discoveries and inventions (lots of examples of this), go for an easy life of rentierism and produce nothing of worth other than finding better ways to extract tolls from people. The system also locks out people who have the potential to innovate, who knows how many Faradays we have snubbed out from making important contributions to human innovation.

    Rakas21
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)

    How do the Socialists handle the fact that command economies are woefully inefficient.
    How do large corporations not act like command economies internally speaking? There is no market within something like AstraZennica. The centralised leadership using the signals it gets externally (or they are just aiming for a wonder drug) and then plans how to organise the internal non market organisation of resources the company owns. In this case it is what to research and hot to organise the research. Then they issue these commands down the chain of command structure of the company. This operates on a global scale with the company operating in America, uk, Sweden and India. The modern powerhouses of industry are a network of global command economies.

    Command economies already exist, even traditional ones you are thinking of where the command is coming from the government. Nuclear power can simply not operate without a certain level of planning from the government for example.

    Also I have told you this many times but you never ever listen... A lot of socialists would deal with your statement on command economies by agreeing with you. They existed at the time of the soviet union and during the first international (so don't bother with no true Scotsman crap) and they exist now. But back to my innovation post, we produced a lot of major discoveries technological developments when we were "woefully inefficient".

    I can think of three left wing responses to your command economy question.

    1) command economies already exist, like in my astrazennica example.

    2) With the technology we have now or in the future it may be possible to solve the "calculation debate". If computers can work out what the surpluses and shortages of goods that we know we need are we can just listen to what the computers tell us. The computers may be able to do what the markets do but on more humanist and egalitarian grounds of distribution. You can have a mixed economy like this where there is a mixture of computer controlled centralisation and what you refer to as markets where human consumers are the drivers in some kind of market. There was no option like this to pursue in 1917. It was tried in Chile in the 70s briefly but then Pinochet murdered everyone and seized control and enforced neoliberl reforms putting a stop to that experiment. Computers are orders of magnitude more powerful now than they were in the 70s.

    3) The opposition to command economies on idealism grounds. These are easy to find if you just read a bit. This is from the wiki on planned economies under the disadvantages section.

    Suppression of economic democracy and self-management
    Economist Robin Hahnel notes that, even if central planning overcame its inherent inhibitions of incentives and innovation, it would nevertheless be unable to maximize economic democracy and self-management, which he believes are concepts that are more intellectually coherent, consistent and just than mainstream notions of economic freedom
    Spoiler:
    Show
    "Combined with a more democratic political system, and redone to closer approximate a best case version,centrally planned economies no doubt would have performed better. But they could never have delivered economic self-management, they would always have been slow to innovate as apathy and frustration took their inevitable toll, and they would always have been susceptible to growing inequities and inefficiencies as the effects of differential economic power grew. Under central planning neither planners, managers, nor workers had incentives to promote the social economic interest. Nor did impeding markets for final goods to the planning system enfranchise consumers in meaningful ways. But central planning would have been incompatible with economic democracy even if it had overcome its information and incentive liabilities. And the truth is that it survived as long as it did only because it was propped up by unprecedented totalitarian political power."[11]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planne...nomic_planning
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    How would the Socialists combat the lack of an incentive to innovate that comes with the removal of defined and enforced private property rights.

    How do the Socialists handle the fact that command economies are woefully inefficient.
    Private property would become public property or state-owned - actually, I'll just let ChaoticButterfly fill you in, he seems more enthusiastic here, I'm tired.

    Command/planned economies are not inefficient - Hitler's Nazi regime used a command economy and it was extremely efficient, as did Stalin, although what they lacked was a democratically planned economy.

    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    If you were to win a majority in the next election how would be PM and how would be decided ? Also who would you consider going into coalition with ?
    Nobody would be prime minister - if we had to have one, we might appoint a commissar, but they wouldn't have power over the rest of the government, they'd just have the title so that other parties had a familiar face they could talk/reason with etc.
    Or we might let the minority party take the premiership - we're not too bothered.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Regarding the 'command economy' thing, I tend to accept the inefficiency, and that's why I'd opt for a simulated market economy.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Aaaaand any more?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Engage people in debate and then draw their attention to the MHoC - that's fine. However the current thread title is less than appropriate for this forum. Otherwise you're starting an escalation that's going to make our little corner of TSR rather unpopular.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    How did we ever get fire if the caveman didn't become a millionaire when he cooked his first meal. Or the pre history proto-chemist guy who smelt metals with that fire. :rofl:

    Humans have been innovating long before capitalism and private property was a thing. In fact innovation was essential in creating the ground conditions that allowed capitalism to become a thing. Good luck getting industrialisation without Newton's laws of motion.

    Then not to mention that the profit motive can stifle innovation as well as incentavise it. People can strive for monopolies, undermine competitors, exploit entrepreneurs who reap no benefit from their discoveries and inventions (lots of examples of this), go for an easy life of rentierism and produce nothing of worth other than finding better ways to extract tolls from people. The system also locks out people who have the potential to innovate, who knows how many Faradays we have snubbed out from making important contributions to human innovation.

    Rakas21
    I assume you are not unintelligent enough to not understand that society today is not the same as thousands of years ago and I read an interesting article on the matter the other week which i can find if you wish.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I assume you are not unintelligent enough to not understand that society today is not the same as thousands of years ago and I read an interesting article on the matter the other week which i can find if you wish.
    Humans were innovating well before capitalism was even a thing was my point.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Humans were innovating well before capitalism was even a thing was my point.
    But arguably with early innovations there were reasons to innovate for major personal reasons, for instance with fire get lower chances of disease, some fatal.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Humans were innovating well before capitalism was even a thing was my point.
    Were they innovating as quickly though. Cutthroat competition does have its advantages.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Were they innovating as quickly though. Cutthroat competition does have its advantages.
    I think the differences would be barely noticeable. Creative people will be naturally innovative (Unless brutally oppressed)

    Where the capitalist system does have advantages is that provided its in the right context it can create efficient, less wasteful outcomes. The problem is its being put in places where it was not intended to work: Schools is one notable example.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I think the differences would be barely noticeable. Creative people will be naturally innovative (Unless brutally oppressed)

    Where the capitalist system does have advantages is that provided its in the right context it can create efficient, less wasteful outcomes. The problem is its being put in places where it was not intended to work: Schools is one notable example.
    This is essentially true, but capitalism isn't the only source of market benefits.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Engage people in debate and then draw their attention to the MHoC - that's fine. However the current thread title is less than appropriate for this forum. Otherwise you're starting an escalation that's going to make our little corner of TSR rather unpopular.
    What would you prefer, Mr Speaker? Just "Question the TSR Socialists"? Or "Question the Socialists of TSR?" to make it a bit more covert that we're a party and include Labour, which I'm not such a fan of?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    What would you prefer, Mr Speaker? Just "Question the TSR Socialists"? Or "Question the Socialists of TSR?" to make it a bit more covert that we're a party and include Labour, which I'm not such a fan of?
    There shouldn't be any 'official' 'TSR X Party' threads outside the MHoC so if you're going down that vein then it'd have to be the second once.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    There shouldn't be any 'official' 'TSR X Party' threads outside the MHoC so if you're going down that vein then it'd have to be the second once.
    Ah right grand - was going to ask because I've made one in a similar vein - not related to the party - here:
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=4020923
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,945

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.