Skip to main content

Reply to "Incentives"

quote:
Originally posted by UppityNegress:
If they receive 100% of the value of their labor, am I correct in assuming that in an anarch-socialist state there are no compulsotroy taxes? If so, how do you propose people like the handicapped, elderly, ill, and orphans survive? What becomes of free public education, civil projects, and other state sponsored services which rely on taxes to pay the laborers?


In a Marxist socialist system with a democratically run government composed of the workers, they could be government-subsidized. With Syndicalism they could be funded by trade unionism.

You are right that the anarcho-socialist system has the hardest time answering this question. In a system with a very minimal government, the money could come from public federal reserves (like a public piggy-bank).

quote:
Also, you say salaries would be higher in communist businesses, but if there is no centralized structure, what is to stop entrepeneurs from paying an extremely low "incentive" in exchange for a job. If I can get away with pying someone half of what I'm supposed to, what's my incentive to not do so, thus increasing my own profit? You can say workers will strike, but if every entrepeneurs gets this idea into their heads, there really won't be many alternatives.


How can an entrepreneurs pay low wages when they do not have control of wages? You are still thinking like a capialist. Razz No individual person "owns" business, so wages cannot be raised or lowered without consulting workers' councils first. No individual owns the business, they are all equally invested and thus their equal ownership cancels each other out. It's democracy pure and simple.

quote:
Unions can form, but then who regulates that union to stop them from becoming as greedy as the entrepeneurs.


Labor laws.

quote:
Would they not become a coercive force, then once you get unions and more bureacracy, it seems to start defeating one of the purposes of communism in the first place.


You're right, but I don't see how this can happen since unions can't buy out other businesses. Property is owned collectively.

quote:
I can see communism or socialism working in small settings, but try to implement it on a national level and there's just way too much difficulty and becomes counterproductive when compared to capitalism. The fact that it has never in modern history succeeded on a national level seems to verify this.


State socialism DID succeed on a national level. Quite well actually. In the Soviet Union's 72 year-lifespan, it brought Russia from being a post-feudal society with absolute monarchy (it was where France was in the 1600's) to having half the GDP of the US, 2/3 of our nuke program and having a higher average Real GDP per capita than the US. Nobody can deny that the average Russian and the average Chinese lived better economically under state socialism than Neoliberal capitalism. This is nothing to scoff at.

Structurally, capitalism does not work as well as you are purporting it does. Look at Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Peru, Mexico, Niger, Ethiopia, Chad, Niger, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Indonesia, Mauritania and the Central African Republic. All shining examples of capitalist organization. 1% of society control and owns everything while everyone else is starving and fighting one another.

We can even look at the US where 40 million people have no health care, 40 million have inadequate care, bosses get paid 190 times what you get paid for doing a fraction of the work, and jobs are being outsourced and downsized everyday. The global economy has stagnated under laissez-faire capitalism (inflation has being skyrocketing since the 1960's), billionaires are multiplying like rabbits but the rest of us are fucked. The environment is in shambles and we're constantly fighting other countries for natural resources for the gain of corporations. You should really check out some articles on economic stagnation the more capitalistic Western nations become. The economy was safer under Social Democracy than it is now.

Wow, messianic capitalism to the rescue.

Let's compare that to countries with more socialist infrastructure like Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, Iceland, Denmark and the former Yugoslavia. The short-lived anarcho-communist societies set up in Ukraine and Spain produced more in their short life spans than ANY capitalist company town every built.

State socialism fell apart due to political reasons (Western aggression and a resurgent capital class due to privitization policies), not so much economic. State socialism is not neccessarily a bad idea, it had bad leaders and was tried in countries that were poor to begin with (but did miracles for their economy in a short time). I still think decentralized socialism in a rich first world country would operate better.
×
×
×
×