Khartoum wrote:@RD...the economics of anarchy model.

MekongMouse wrote:@RD, sounds like Adam Smith's wealth of nations.

Rain Dog wrote:

vladimir wrote:
2. What is the alternative to unfettered capitalism?

Here is a model I am familiar with. A free beer to the first person that can name the name of the model and the source (Without Googling the terms on the internet I hope)

Here is a skeleton outline of the ideology.

Basic Tenets:

1) Ownership of property is a fundamental right

2) Within an industry, means of production should be dispersed rather than centralized (whether it be the state, a few wealthy people, or a few big corporations)

Components:

1) Decentralization of production. Allowing smaller "units" to produce (where possible) should take precedent over allowing larger entities like (MNCs) taking over production -- particularly when they add no value other than the financial clout to (own a market).

2) The ability to earn a living without being fully reliant on the property of others --- output (and as a result wealth) might vary from owner to owner based on various factors (Motivation, luck, skill, ability) but everyone will have the opportunity to impact their own future -- resulting in greater motivation.

3) De-emphasis of labor unions in favor of industry specific professional associations and trade/craft unions. Labor unions are too associated with class struggle and inevitably lead to conflict rather than cooperation. Professional associations and trade/craft unions involve employers and employees alike resulting in a vested interest in the industry succeeding. Thus self-regulation becomes more plausible and some base floor level of expectations on performance, ethics, rights, and responsibilities can be established.

4) Dissolution (or at least underemphasis) on private banking (or at least the for profit interest based activities that drive it. Instead Credit Unions should play a greater role.

5) Industries can self-regulate for the most part (via Professional associations and Trade/Craft Unions), however Government authority must play an extremely active role in Antitrust legislation and enforcement, so that economic power not be corrupted by evolving into only being in the hands of a few.

There are some disadvantages to this model. For example dispersed markets will be less "efficient" due to lack of economies of scale. Technological growth might also be slowed in someways if the path to finding technical synergies with other partners becomes to difficult. That said, these problems are not unworkable -- and the dispersion of "players" in an industry could actually lead to more innovation.

It certainly seems a more humane and reasonable way.

What do you think?

Rain Dog wrote:What is the overall effect on only serving the Profit Motive?

StroppyChops wrote:

JBTrain wrote:

vladimir wrote:Thanks, guys, some good ideas.

@SC, yes, old Jeezer was a Jew, but he was the first Christian, yes?

Certainly not. Separating Jesus from Judaism was the work of others long after his death.

Correct - He died a fully practicing Jew, He didn't replace the Law, He completed it.

clippy wrote:people view communism as failed, its somewhat through a prism of western propaganda. who was the first man in space? Yuri Gagarin of course, and the USSR was able to motivate people to do it. Actual rocket scientists here.... the best scientists and engineers, not motivated by salary or stock options but by a desire to acheive the mission

I was talking to a Russian friend - she told me that everyone got free heating. compare this to some of our own countries where if you dont have money to pay the gas bill you'll freeze to death. and be told its your own fault for not having a job

there was a period in the 50s and 60s where the soviets were well in advance of the west and the US was trying to catch up

of course it all collapsed later in a mess of bureaucracy and inertia of central planning


the downside of communism was that it didnt take into account that people are different and are motivated by differnt things, everyone must work for the state and the state will provide for all, many people reject that because they are individualistic and entrepreneurial and wish to live their own life.

but i think capitalism is equally as bad. theres only one way to live a successful life - study at school or a trade, get a career, buy a house for you and family, be a consumer, pay your taxes. a lot of people like that, but others would probably like to be part of a co-operative and get a fair share for their labour

Rain Dog wrote:

StroppyChops wrote:

JBTrain wrote:

vladimir wrote:Thanks, guys, some good ideas.

@SC, yes, old Jeezer was a Jew, but he was the first Christian, yes?

Certainly not. Separating Jesus from Judaism was the work of others long after his death.

Correct - He died a fully practicing Jew, He didn't replace the Law, He completed it.

I think this is a very tricky question actually. I guess he might be considered an "Ethnic" Jew although I find it dubious that anyone said to be of a "Virgin Birth" can really claim ethnicity. If he truly said "I am the Word" then that would be Heresy to Judaism right? Was this not one of the reasons the Jewish "Priests" worked to have him crucified?

It seems to me a "Heretic" may be a better description --- and I do not mean that in an unflattering way.

Cheers,

RD

rubberbaron wrote:This is a forum, of course, so one might expect a few digressions. In my view it hasn’t really turned into that discussion the topic called for, though. Wasn’t it ‘Was Marx Right?’ ...

rubberbaron wrote: Communism is an economic theory and doctrine, so is capitalism. Christianity and all other religions have nothing to do with this. They are based on spirituality and concern the well-being of the human mind without any economic aspect (at least originally).

rubberbaron wrote: To address one of the points Vlad made right in his first post. You really can’t call Christianity a failed doctrine (wrong word to begin with). With about 2 billion Christians in the world I would think this religion has been rather successful. It is followed by Islam with about 1.6 billion followers; Buddhists account for a mere 600 million followers. You can’t really call that failed – at least not in terms of sheer numbers.

NickyNY wrote:..been ing a while, question drew me in....

Listen guys, I owe you big. I needed some place to test out my very own philosophical treatise 'in the wild', away from academia, and this province worked out just perfectly. Complete success.

I just told crowds of your semi-literate peasants and factory workers that they've been enslaved, exploited, cheated and screwed for thousands of years by you. To improve their sour mood, I also gave them the good news. I told them all that those times are almost over and will end as soon as their bosses, generals, priests, landlords, owners (basically you guys) give up your companies, factories, farms, businesses - the means of productions - to be owned collectively by all the workers and peasants you've been oppressing since the dawn of time.

Then I finished strong, by giving the now excited crowd my winning closer - the utopia speech. I said that this will be the first step towards a fantasy like future, a utopia, where everyone is equal and gets their fair share, and nobody dies from hunger while another has their fill.

Then someone asks, when all of this will happen. Any day now at best, says I, and no longer than a millennium at worst, so be patient, since any moment now those leeches will begin to surrender their means of production. So keep your eyes peeled for the next millennium or so, but alas what's 1000 years in the bigger scheme of things, I tried to keep their spirits up.

And guys, I kept my speeches to a minimum as promised. I even remembered you guys telling me to motivate them to work harder, and mission accomplished. I told them to stop lollygagging, and to get back to work pronto, and no more breaks all month to make up this time. I even cracked a whip I brought for the occasion a few times. So no worry, all is well.

Well my job is done. Sorry to be curt but I have a wine tasting at the Embassy at 8 sharp, and Engels hates it when I miss the first toast. Well, you understand... Tootles!

[A month later]

Hey, now, you just wait... I never told them to start torturing their oppressors,( I mean you guys), and raping your children in order to speed up your giving up the means of production. Nor did I tell them to exterminate the entire social class of their oppressors as slowly and painfully as possible. That was the furthest thing from my mind. Frankly I thought they would all dance together in a ritual of forgiveness, build a campfire, follow a vegan lifestyle, maybe bond at some SE Asian watering hole, oppressors and their victim now the best of buddies for life.

How was I supposed to know the kind proletariat of one city would decide to save on feed for animals at the city zoo by feeding the zoo animals with the still living former oppressors? There is not a single line anywhere in any of my writing that even hints about doing this. Name is Marx. Not Nostradamus, thank you very much. Jew. Not a gypsy so no crystal balls either.

How they have cavorted my beautiful philosophy, and created something that has absolutely nothing in common nor is related in any way shape or form to my original. So you can't blame me how these brutes took my lovely ideas and implemented ...

What? What are you talking about?!? Gulags? Cultural Revolution? Secret police? Slave labor? Solzhenitsyn? What the... Listen, I got lawyers. Nothing to do with me. Sue me.
=================

This is why Marx has to answer for his ideas, since he was sharing his philosophy with the hopes of making people aware, much like the motives of someone screaming "fire" inside a building they believe is on fire, to warn people inside of the danger. But you cannot hide from responsibility for the people trampled to death due to your screams, while all the while happily taking credit for any benefits your warning shouts may have had.

=================