This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Communism - can it work? A mature discussion on improving the welfare of all.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
Just copying across what was in the Recycling Bin first:
My personal belief is that communism is effective at maintaining a societal balance, but results in stagnation, as it doesn't promote growth and innovation. Capitalism has a process to reward innovation, so I'd like to see what you think about how communism can encourage in a system where you're actively discouraging exceptional rewards.
Well, before I hop threads and discuss it, I think the problem of non-workers is solved rather simply. (Note that this is assuming we're living in the economic system we are now, so I'm gonna talk about classes, though the goal would be to gradually shrink the divide between the classes until everyone is equal, but that's not an immediate concern.)
1. Maintain a strong and accurate census, requiring all citizens to obtain birth certificate and social security numbers for their children. This would be free, and it would be intended for purposes of taxation, government assistance, and accurate assessment of population growth. On this topic, I'd also mention I'd probably give tax breaks to those with 2 or fewer children.
2. Keep and potentially reform progressive tax, mainly income tax, capital gains tax, and inheritance tax. Those in the very middlest part of the middle class, just as an example, would pay roughly what they pay in tax now, plus what they pay for living expenses, and in return, they receive a certain amount of welfare to pay for their living expenses. The poor, on the other hand, would pay lower taxes on their lower income, but receive the same amount of living expense credits.
3. Maintain large and proactive welfare and tax fraud bureaus to prevent people from cheating the system. Everyone would get the same amount of living money from the government, but the unemployed would have little money besides.
Thus, the unemployed don't need to fear death from starvation or homelessness, but take home no extra money for luxuries. Those who work give most of their money to the state in the form of tax, but do take home a portion of it, and seeing as their personal living expenses are paid for, can spend it on luxuries. Those who try to cheat the system (say, by spending their welfare check on alcohol and living in a box instead of spending it on rent) are arrested and held in a facility specifically for non-violent criminals, where they would be put to light work in return for clean, comfortable lodging. I'd probably run these facilities much like Army dormitories, where you are given freedom for the most part, but with a heavily guarded outer border and mandatory attendance formations.
If I had my way, I'd probably make unpleasant jobs like janitorial work into a form of community service for misdemeanors and the like. That's how extra duty worked in the Army. Give them a probation officer to make sure they come in in a timely fashion and do the work to standard, and then they only have to do it for 15, 30, 0r 45 days, depending on the offense.
Two questions here on this:
1) What incentive would there be to work? Would you work 40 hours a week for an extra packet of chocolates above and beyond what everybody else is getting?
2) Wouldn't this still result in a multi-class system? How do you see this gradually shift towards a level of equality?
1. Where possible, I'd probably make work hours shorter, but with the same mean pay, and then supplement the workforce with more robotic infrastructure. It would lower unemployment, while keeping the amount of work being done roughly the same.
2. Again, this is my concept for Phase 1, like, if I was given total control of the US economy tomorrow. I don't think everyone should make the same thing. I think people should be paid in accordance with their work output. A doctor does require a great deal more training and precision than a janitor, and in order for there to be doctors, they would be paid more.
However, this would be after everyone else's needs are met. "From each according to his ability, to each based off his need." Whatever is left in that equation would be either saved by the government, or distributed to the hardest workers. Therefore, one could still gain a higher quality of life than the baseline by working very hard, but I'd put diminishing returns on these surpluses to prevent people from widening the gap beyond an acceptable point.
In my ideal system, the poor would be those who refused to work, but they wouldn't starve, and the rich would be those who worked hard, but their quality of life would not be terribly far above the middle class, who would be inclusive to everyone who was willing to work. Just as an analogy, you might say that the poor non-workers would ride the bus, the middle class would drive Hyundais, and the "rich" hardest workers would drive Mercedes-Benz, but no one (except the Italians) would drive Feraris or Lambourginis.
If there were national surpluses, I'd further increase the quality of life (in the form of taxes breaks to the middle class first), and if there were national deficits, I'd increase the diminishing returns on the rich.
Post by
Squishalot
but I'd put diminishing returns on these surpluses to prevent people from widening the gap beyond an acceptable point.
What would make an objectively acceptable point? Key word here is objective, as I think that a lot of people (probably, anyone in the top 10% of wealth/income bracket) would consider the current gap acceptable.
Post by
Skreeran
but I'd put diminishing returns on these surpluses to prevent people from widening the gap beyond an acceptable point.
What would make an objectively acceptable point? Key word here is objective, as I think that a lot of people (probably, anyone in the top 10% of wealth/income bracket) would consider the current gap acceptable.Well really the actual point is rather arbitrary, I think. Just to throw out an example without any real economic thought going into it, I might define it as "Every dollar after $10,000 gets taxed double. Every dollar after $15,000 gets taxed triple. Every dollar after $17,500 gets taxed quadruple." etc. Here the arbitrary point would be $10,000. Now these numbers aren't representative of what the actual figures are, just a point to show how diminishing returns would work to taper off large sums of money. As the Progressive Tax works here in America, it starts at about 3% for the poorest, and goes all the way to 39.6% for the richest. Every dollar after $400,000 annual income is taxed at a flat rate of 39.6%, no matter how high it goes.
My system, on the other hand, would reduce inequality by tapering off individual wealth. A larger and larger portion of that money goes to improving the lives of the whole citizenship, rather than that single individual's. I think we can agree that no one deserves to live like Donald Trump or Paris Hilton. No one worked so hard that they earned all that money. So I would set the highest quality of life somewhere around upper middle class, with the lowest around lower middle class.
Post by
Skreeran
Incidentally, I'd like to leave
this
here. Not really an argument, per se, but for anyone who isn't familair with the history of Capitalism and Communism, it's a great crash course.
Post by
Squishalot
My system, on the other hand, would reduce inequality by tapering off individual wealth. A larger and larger portion of that money goes to improving the lives of the whole citizenship, rather than that single individual's.
I think we can agree that no one deserves to live like Donald Trump or Paris Hilton. No one worked so hard that they earned all that money.
So I would set the highest quality of life somewhere around upper middle class, with the lowest around lower middle class.
I see what you're trying to say, but I take issue with the bolded bit. You can't say that Donald Trump worked harder than someone pulling three jobs to make ends meet. Neither did Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet or Henry Ford. What makes them stand out is that they innovate and develop new ideas. They've created significant intellectual capital, and that intellectual capital is what has worked hard for them.
Suppose I create an innovation that will help me perform my tasks twice as quickly as I would if I didn't create it. In your system, what do I deserve for achieving that? In the world we live in, I will be rewarded with payrises, bonuses, more responsibilities to achieve similar savings in other areas. I will be motivated to do so and to take on additional work outside my area of expertise through the promise of a significantly better standard of living. I'm probably earning, on a post-tax basis, a bit under 3 times what I would have earned when I started working. I think that's fair, certainly, but perhaps others might disagree, as they might say I'm still working the same hours at a desk job.
That's more why I'm asking, where would you draw the line? I understand your system and the rationale behind it, but I'm struggling to see why a billionaire's money is somehow less deserved or justified than a millionaire's money.
Post by
Skreeran
Building a financial engine that pumps capital into your bank account is not the same amount of work as working for money. It's unfair. It's cheating the system, and I wouldn't allow it.
In my system, most innovators would be sponsored by the government. That's how the Soviets did it, and they had a pretty damn good history of innovative machines. Need a new tank? Put together a committee to design one. Need a new phone? Refer it to your telecommunications bureau and have them develop a new design.
And civilians who came up with important or useful inventions would be rewarded. I'd probably give them a large lump sum reward in return for state ownership of their design. See, I don't see any reason why one member of a community should be able to force other members of that community to pay an overhead just because they own the "copyright." If a useful invention is invented one one member of my hypothetical community, I'd only charge citizens the cost it takes to build and/or implement it, and no more.
I mean, maybe this is just a point where we disagree, but I can think of no instance where any one individual should have a billion dollars.
Post by
Squishalot
A large part of Soviet or modern day communist societies (e.g. Vietnam, China, Venezuela, etc.) is about control of the people and their movements. Part of this prevents competent people from leaving the country without taking extreme measures to get out, as people like Rank are experiencing.
I appreciate that government sponsored innovators would work in a universal / global communist society, but it would have to coexist in a world where not all countries are equal. What would prevent your innovators from heading overseas and taking their intellectual capital with them, in order to obtain higher rewards? A large part of capitalism is that innovators (or in fact, any human capital) are able to take their services and their worth to the highest bidder, and have relative freedom of movement to do so. Unless your hypothetical large lump sum is big enough (which would cause a class risk if you have a few Edisons, for example) the promise of a much better life would tempt people over towards my hypothetical social/capitalist society instead.
So with that in mind, I suppose I should outline my vision of where I think society should be. I completely agree that each person's needs should be taken care of, much like your baseline unemployed view. However, that's where I draw the line. I don't believe in extending the quality of living of that baseline level beyond their basic needs (subject to technological advancements - base quality of living would have extended to internet, adequate broadband, mobile telephones, etc.).
I completely believe that people should be encouraged and incentivised to work hard, to innovate, and should be rewarded for their efforts, commensurate with what people are willing to pay for it. If people create what others want, I don't think that there should be any reason why they can't barter their goods and services freely with other people, without government intervention.
I don't think that the billionaires of the world have any negative impact on the quality of living of those in this sort of social / capitalist society, because there is a minimum standard of living and quality of life. There isn't the capacity for them to influence the constitutional rules mandating the minimum standard of living.
Post by
Skreeran
Well firstly, I will say that there are many bright minds who care about more than just the size of their check. Kalashnikov built his rifle out of a design to help the Red Army, rather than for profit. The
KMDB
was a function of the military, and as such most of its members had a vested interest in staying in the country.
But perhaps phone or car makers wouldn't have the same interest.
In that case, I would probably still use a design bureau (perhaps formed out of the military), do the best I could with that, focus on building a powerful industry with the tools I had, and then purchasing/ripping off designs from other countries (depending on how many domestic resources I had and how much I depended on trade partnerships that might be harmed by foreign copyright infringement).
This is a good time to note that
World Revolution
is a key part of Marxism.
Post by
Squishalot
Would the China approach be a fair example of what you're thinking in that respect?
I think that what we're discussing here actually demonstrates that world revolution is not just a key part, but a necessary part.
Post by
Skreeran
Not absolutely necessary. If the tables were switched, and the large resource rich countries were all Communist, and you had to move to the third-world to get to a Capitalist nation, then you wouldn't have quite the same problem of mass emigration. I don't think World Revolution is necessary for a single Communist society to function, but I do think there has to be a certain critical mass and standard of living in order for that sort of system to grow, rather than bleed out.
And it all depends on the particular nation. For example, if my native state of Washington were to agree to switch over to a Communist society (which the West is basically ready to do), we could probably survive just on our agriculture industry. Any new inventions that we'd need could be imported and we'd still export enough to make it work.
As for China, I don't like the conditions their workers are forced to endure, but the economic model does make sense. Export enough to the Capitalists that you can hire foreign experts and purchase/rip-off foreign inventions.
Post by
Squishalot
I'd suggest that if developed nations were all Communist, that effectively is world revolution at that point. What I'm getting at is if there is a mix of Communist and Capitalist developed nations of roughly even size, the model will fall over, because of the emigration.
Well, more specifically, I agree that the system can grow, but I don't know that it would grow at the same rate as a capitalist nation due to the innovation concerns.
So, looking at China's economic model, they have one of the highest levels of inequality in the world, because the foreign experts / those who rip off foreign inventions do so for profit. I've seen this first-hand, because my family's business clients include a few Chinese billionaires in the Donald Trump vein - owning entire suburbs, massive property developments, skyrise buildings, shopping centres.
Edit: I haven't checked, but it could be billionaires in RMB. If so, they're only multi-millionaires, with net worth around 300-400M USD. Point still remains though.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Skreeran
Oh, and another thing: While Capitalist countries may be able to monopolize the innovators, countries with good working conditions are attractive to laborers.
Seattle just raised its minimum wage to $15, and I'm seriously considering moving there myself.
Post by
Squishalot
I don't disagree with that. As I mentioned before though, as long as you provide a baseline standard of living and good working conditions, I don't see a reason why billionaires can't coexist with the common worker in a society, whereas you see it as an unnecessary evil.
Post by
Skreeran
So, looking at China's economic model, they have one of the highest levels of inequality in the world, because the foreign experts / those who rip off foreign inventions do so for profit. I've seen this first-hand, because my family's business clients include a few Chinese billionaires in the Donald Trump vein - owning entire suburbs, massive property developments, skyrise buildings, shopping centres.Right, I don't like everything about their economic model, but I mean that becoming a country with massive exports can counter lack of innovators. Make enoguh money from exports and you can hire foreign innovators and buy inventions.
I don't disagree with that. As I mentioned before though, as long as you provide a baseline standard of living and good working conditions, I don't see a reason why billionaires can't coexist with the common worker in a society, whereas you see it as an unnecessary evil.Oh absolutely. Gross wealth is absolutely disgusting to me. I think people should be entitled to profit from their
work
, but not to such an extent that they hoard that amount of wealth.
I mean, you can make a case that
inventors
should be entitled to all of the wealth that their idea can possibly bring in, despite it having taken far less labor to create it. I'd disagree, but there's a case there. But what about those who simply inherited a money engine? I mean, if Paris Hilton inherits Hilton Hotels, she'll have done no work at all and still earn more money than she can possibly ever spend in her life. That's simply not fair.
Post by
Skreeran
And here's another case. What about those innovators who make one good invention, strike it rich, and then never have to invent again? It could be argued that in some cases a Capitalistic system actually stifles repeat innovation by individuals.
Post by
Squishalot
Make enoguh money from exports and you can hire foreign innovators and buy inventions.
Doesn't that mean that you're paying them at Capitalist-rates though, to bring them across the pond? Classical economics suggests that your higher taxing society won't be able to encourage foreign innovators to come. That's why countries around the world feel it's important not to set the top tax rates at too high a level, because it stifles investment and growth, and drives people overseas.
I mean, you can make a case that inventors should be entitled to all of the wealth that their idea can possibly bring in, despite it having taken far less labor to create it. I'd disagree, but there's a case there. But what about those who simply inherited a money engine? I mean, if Paris Hilton inherits Hilton Hotels, she'll have done no work at all and still earn more money than she can possibly ever spend in her life. That's simply not fair.
If I have an agreement with my friends to pool all of our excess money in your society and give it to a single person, why should that be regulated by the government? Essentially, the effect of what you're saying is that you would regulate the ability for people to freely exchange money and goods with each other, by creating financial disincentives to do so (wealth tax). Surely that's not fair either?
And here's another case. What about those innovators who make one good invention, strike it rich, and then never have to invent again? It could be argued that in some cases a Capitalistic system actually stifles repeat innovation by individuals.
Absolutely, which is why it's offset by a) financially incentivising them to keep inventing (by not creating high barriers to wealth creation), and b) financially incentivising everybody else to catch up.
The issue I think you're driving at with the comment is around copyright and patents, and being able to invent something and not worry about the goldmine you're sitting on for another 25-50 years. I think that there is scope to refine the patent system to both encourage initial innovation as well as ongoing advancement, by turning it into a royalty / ongoing payment system, rather than a 'file and shelve' system as it is today.
Post by
Skreeran
I'll respond to those points later, but my time's being stretched a bit thin because we've got a cross-continental move coming up in a week and are behind on preparing for it.
I will leave this, though. It's a very interesting read by Communist Party Chairman Sam Webb:
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/a-party-of-socialism-in-the-21st-century-what-it-looks-like-what-it-says-and-what-it-does/
Post by
Morec0
The best way I can think of wording a good explanation of Communism:
It's the perfect system for the perfect world.
It relies on everyone joining together and working towards the betterment of the whole, rather than betterment of the self, but it is human nature to work towards the betterment of the self over the betterment of the whole. Because of this, all it would take for well-intentioned Communism to fail is for one person (we'll call him Mr. S) to work towards the betterment of himself rather than the whole while everyone else betters the whole - including Mr. S - leading to Mr. S being better off than everyone else, and because of that gaining a level of power over everyone else.
Thus rises a dictatorship.
Post by
Maurvyn
Absolutely, which is why it's offset by a) financially incentivising them to keep inventing (by not creating high barriers to wealth creation), and b) financially incentivising everybody else to catch up.
In my opinion, this is an false premise: "financially incentivising".
It is based on the assumption that as long as people work hard for it, everybody can become wealthy. That is not the case. Hard work alone has very little to do with creating wealth.
Ask Thomas Edison's team of hard working inventors how wealthy their inventions and work made them...
Bill Gates didn't do it alone, and neither did Jobs. They get a lot of credit, and are in the limelight, but they were not solely responsible for their success.
Most people who work hard will never become wealthy, and many will barely if ever make even the national average.
I am not saying there aren't people whose success was partially due to their work ethic; but it was also due to other factors, like luck, connections, education, or having a really strong support team.
There are also many many people who start out wealthy having never worked a day in their lives.
In the United States the single biggest predictor of future wealth is heredity. We have a much poorer rating for upward economic mobility than many smaller and poorer countries.
(incidentally, every one of those beating us in this regard is highly socialist)
Some research
Also, limiting high income should not disincentivise people from working. Ask Elon Musk or Bill Gates if they are only working until they hit a certain income bracket.
By enforcing a much higher tax on incomes over a certain level, one can prevent the kind of ludicrous "wealth hoarding" we see today, which can have significant, negative impacts on the economy and society.
I would not support a ceiling of 100K, but a ceiling tax for those making over 1 or 2MM a year ( approx 30x national average) would be reasonable.
For those individuals, making more money would not meaningfully impact their lifestyle, but the taxes could significantly improve the functioning of the society through funding education, roads and infrastructure, healthcare, etc.
In my opinion, when you have a small number of people whose incomes have to be measured on a log scale to be compared to the rest the world, something is definitely broken.
These 85 people must have worked REALLY hard
compared to the rest of us.
And it's trending even worse
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The best way I can think of wording a good explanation of Communism:
It's the perfect system for the perfect world.
I really dislike this sentiment. Because
everything
is a perfect system for a perfect world. Absolute dictatorship would be wonderful if we had a perfect leader who was perfectly moral and never made a mistake and if we had a perfect society for him to lead. And anarchy would be wonderful if every person interacted perfectly morally and equitably. Why does communism get this special treatment of always being heralded as somehow the only system that would work in a perfect world?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.