Interesting and gritty interview with a Tibetan monk

[Apech]

Ok, well if you support Marxism then let's go with it. Or if not, let's please hear from some real Marxists or Communists here???

 

Honda autos are widely unsurpassed in quality & value. This is a result of stiff capitalist competition. Has any collectivist automaker been able to equal this? I'm sure there must be better examples than the Trabant?

 

Or to make closer comparisons, why not compare autos made by Communist East Germany & capitalist West Germany at the time? Mercedes Benz vs Trabant? Why is there such a glaring difference in quality here?

 

If you eliminate competition, do you tend to eliminate efficiency & quality?

 

I think you are right, capitalism wins in this sense because competition for markets forces the manufacturers/service providers to improve quality, design, image and other desirables like safety. This is because the producers are competing for a limited market and they want to increase their share. The trabant is an example of what can happen if these forces do not exist in the economy.

 

What sustains the price that the producer can charge is not so much the extra value he might put into the product (although this would determine his share of the market that exists) but the fact that demand exceeds supply. In history this has always been the case. But imagine what happens to the economic model if supply starts to catch up with demand or even outstrip it. The manufacturers have to resort to tactics like built-in obsolescence to fabricate demand. If this is an underlying factor in the world economy i.e. that it has become theoretically possible to make a car for every household on the planet then what is the car's value? I believe that much f what is happening in the world economy is sticking plaster to cover this underlying trend.

 

 

 

 

[RongzomFan]

I personally want to know HOW corporations control America

 

 

I still want a good answer to this

Edited April 27, 2010 by alwayson

[gendao]

i wont go with the title communist or marxist, but i will give a quote from marx:

"Let us now take wage labor.

 

The average price of wage labor is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer. What, therefore, the wage laborer appropriates by means of his labor merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labor, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labor of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the laborer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.

 

In bourgeois society, living labor is but a means to increase accumulated labor. In communist society, accumulated labor is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the laborer.

 

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

 

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

 

From the moment when labor can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolized, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.

 

You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.

 

Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations.

 

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

 

The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason the social forms stringing from your present mode of production and form of property -- historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production -- this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property.

 

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

 

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

 

The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor."

 

When mass production coupled with mass media proliferation is required in order to enter the larger consumer market; how is this accessible by small business? The level of capital required to start up and sustain competitive corporate business is insurmountable to the majority of the population, working class and middle class alike.

I think one of Marx's primary flaw here is that he assumes that Middle Class property owners (bourgeois) & laborers (proletarians) are both FIXED classes. When in fact, they are not - and anyone can transition from one to the other. In free market capitalism, YOU can choose what you want to become. If you don't like being a laborer, you can eventually become a property owner. And no property owner is freely guaranteed his status for life - he has to work hard to maintain it, if he wants. You could always ease artificial barriers to class migration, than trying to altogether eliminate either (impossible).

 

By this fact alone, all his forced meddling is unnecessary & often unfair. And really, to demonize the Middle Class? This also shows how out-of-touch Marx himself was with the real proletarians. Go to any lower class area and they're begging for labor jobs from property owners. Because there's a mutual trade-off here - employers take the risks of capital investment - and laborers get to share in the profits of this risk.

 

Of course, Marx himself was a hypocrite. He preached against bourgeois dynastic family wealth, but also subsisted himself off inheritances from his wife's mother & uncle.

 

And it's no surprise, but a lot of the Middle Class objections to Marxism did prove true.

 

Did abolition of private property under Communism cause laziness? Check.

Did public education under Communism brainwash & indoctrinate children (like the Red Guard)? Check.

 

Marx's other big flaw is that he falsely claimed you could eliminate property ownership and employer/laborer classes.

 

Look, when you "abolish" private property - who ends up with guardianship & rights over that newly "public" property? Everybody, or just the government?

 

And how can you eliminate employers & laborers - without eliminating production & wages? You can't - which is why 99% of people under Communism actually became laborers to the new 1% party official bourgeois.

Edited April 27, 2010 by vortex

[RongzomFan]

We should adopt the communist model where people are forced to work in unsafe factories at gunpoint and/or shipped to siberia.

 

If we do this, we can build a car to compete with the lenin (a model of "car").

Edited April 27, 2010 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

LOL the Trabant was apparently made of cotton!

 

And that is pretty good compared to some communist cars. Apparently communist cars were SO far behind Western technology of the time that it is comical.

And this is AFTER stealing designs from the west.

Edited April 27, 2010 by alwayson

[gendao]

What sustains the price that the producer can charge is not so much the extra value he might put into the product (although this would determine his share of the market that exists) but the fact that demand exceeds supply. In history this has always been the case. But imagine what happens to the economic model if supply starts to catch up with demand or even outstrip it. The manufacturers have to resort to tactics like built-in obsolescence to fabricate demand. If this is an underlying factor in the world economy i.e. that it has become theoretically possible to make a car for every household on the planet then what is the car's value? I believe that much f what is happening in the world economy is sticking plaster to cover this underlying trend.

But that's the very BEAUTY of free market capitalism - it adapts so quickly to changing reality.

 

If the need & demand for cars dropped, then they would simply cut production. Or shift to another product. This way, excess isn't being wastefully produced that isn't needed.

 

The more demand goes up though, the more production goes up & the cheaper the product becomes though (due to economy of scale). Even today, I think it is a miracle that you can buy an engineering marvel like a Honda for just over $20K. You couldn't buy the parts unassembled for it for that cheap - much less design & build one from scratch yourself. So, if demand were to soar to several billion, they would only get even cheaper.

[RongzomFan]

Why do you have to be elitist?

 

Why can't you be satisfied with older technology like the Lenin 1.6 SLX?

 

Of course a rich snob like you wants a Honda

 

People like you want to constantly innovate and make advances. You make me sick.

Edited April 27, 2010 by alwayson

[goldisheavy]

They own the means of production (or a very large percentage).

 

It's more than that. Corps control the culture because they own most media companies. Corps control the government through lobbying. Corps control the government through threats (that's how the bailout/theft bill was passed). I'm not even going to bother talking about bribes and other outright crooked shit that happens all the time on the down low.

 

So basically they own the means of production and they own the government to a large extent. Corps do not have absolute control and change is happening. There is no reason to lose hope. At the same time, don't delude yourself thinking that corps do not control USA.

 

Are they doing a good job? No. They are doing a terrible job.

Edited April 27, 2010 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

But that's the very BEAUTY of free market capitalism - it adapts so quickly to changing reality.

 

Bull shit. Watch the video I linked before: http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/308/

[RongzomFan]

It's more than that. Corps control the culture because they own most media companies. Corps control the government through lobbying. Corps control the government through threats (that's how the bailout/theft bill was passed). I'm not even going to bother talking about bribes and other outright crooked shit that happens all the time on the down low.

 

So basically they own the means of production and they own the government to a large extent. Corps do not have absolute control and change is happening. There is no reason to lose hope. At the same time, don't delude yourself thinking that corps do not control USA.

 

Are they doing a good job? No. They are doing a terrible job.

 

 

Let them keep doing a "terrible job", as long as the majority of Americans live middle class lifestyles as defined by sociology

Edited April 27, 2010 by alwayson

[goldisheavy]

Let them keep doing a "terrible job", as long as the majority of Americans live middle class lifestyles as defined by sociology

 

No. Let's not do that.

[gendao]

Collective ownership is what happens when employees own the business, and make decisions by consensus with the power structure that's less top-down than what occurs in a typical capitalist business.

 

So let's re-ask, how much less? The only honest answer is that it's any amount less. It can be anything from very slightly less to so much less that all decisions are driven by unanimous consensus of all employees.

 

For a concrete example, why don't you research Ricardo Semler, his company, and his management style.

 

Ricardo Semler was invited to teach and speak at MIT Sloan School of Management. Here's a video of at least one of the talks (there might be more out there):

 

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/308/

Can't watch the video yet, but I did read a bit about him.

Industries are based on formats that are basically legacies of military hierarchies, says Semler, which neglect or deny the power of human intuition and democratic participation. In Semler’s own firm, there are no five-year business plans (which he views as wishful thinking), but rather “a rolling rationale about numbers. A project takes off only if a critical mass of employees decides to get involved. Staff determine when they need a leader, and then choose their own bosses in a process akin to courtship

The more freedom he gave his staff to set their own schedules, the more versatile, productive and loyal they became, and the better Semco performed.

 

He encouraged employees to suggest what they should be paid, to evaluate their bosses, to learn each other's jobs, and to tolerate dissent even when divisive. He set up a profit-sharing system and insisted that the company's financials be published internally, so that everyone could see how the company was doing.

 

Semler's CEO-who-manages-least-manages-best approach

 

Semco's revenues have jumped from $35 million to $212 million in the last six years, and the firm grew from several hundred employees to 3,000 with employee turnover of about 1 percent.

 

"The desire for uniformity is a major problem with IT," he says. "But it is a subproduct of the same problems that plague management, which is the need to feel in control, that we're all on the same page, and everyone is being treated equally. But what I want to ask is, 'Why do we all need to be on the same page?' And you realize, of course, that no two people are equal in any respect."

 

Say the guy decides to buy a really expensive one—and it's happened many times. What happens is the peer pressure increases. You better be as good as the laptop you choose, right?

 

But when you're sitting on the beach Monday morning at 11 o'clock, and you're the only one on the beach—that's a different story.

Sounds like a ringing endorsement of Taoist hands-off laissez-faire, natural momentum, peer pressure & democratizing the workplace like Wikipedia. Since free market capitalism rewards the most efficient businesses...I wouldn't be surprised if this new style catches on more.

 

Do note that Ricardo Semler is still the CEO and majority owner of Semco SA, though. It is not collectively owned. And he even cautions against forced equality, Stalinesque opacity & micromanagement (typical symptoms of Communism). Basically, he recommends the opposite of Communist factory or Gulag workers who actually have zero say in "their" State-owned & party-run production factories.

Edited April 27, 2010 by vortex

[Apech]

But that's the very BEAUTY of free market capitalism - it adapts so quickly to changing reality.

 

If the need & demand for cars dropped, then they would simply cut production. Or shift to another product. This way, excess isn't being wastefully produced that isn't needed.

 

The more demand goes up though, the more production goes up & the cheaper the product becomes though (due to economy of scale). Even today, I think it is a miracle that you can buy an engineering marvel like a Honda for just over $20K. You couldn't buy the parts unassembled for it for that cheap - much less design & build one from scratch yourself. So, if demand were to soar to several billion, they would only get even cheaper.

 

Yes I kind of agree with you - BUT the system depends on the ability to create profit for the owner/shareholder and this is the private owner of the means of production. No one understands what happens when that profit begins to evaporate. The global economy is a kind fabrication designed to work as if the old conditions apply.

[Apech]

It's more than that. Corps control the culture because they own most media companies. Corps control the government through lobbying. Corps control the government through threats (that's how the bailout/theft bill was passed). I'm not even going to bother talking about bribes and other outright crooked shit that happens all the time on the down low.

 

So basically they own the means of production and they own the government to a large extent. Corps do not have absolute control and change is happening. There is no reason to lose hope. At the same time, don't delude yourself thinking that corps do not control USA.

 

Are they doing a good job? No. They are doing a terrible job.

 

These are just the mechanisms of control which are solely based on the idea that one or a few people can own the means of production. Marx's analysis was right its just that his solution proved to be unworkable - while Soviet science put a man in space first, its car companies built the Trabant - that says it all.

[goldisheavy]

Can't watch the video yet, but I did read a bit about him.Sounds like a ringing endorsement of Taoist hands-off laissez-faire, natural momentum, peer pressure & democratizing the workplace like Wikipedia. Since free market capitalism rewards the most efficient businesses...I wouldn't be surprised if this new style catches on more.

 

Do note that Ricardo Semler is still the CEO and majority owner of Semco SA, though. It is not collectively owned. And he even cautions against forced equality, Stalinesque opacity & micromanagement (typical symptoms of Communism). Basically, he recommends the opposite of Communist factory or Gulag workers who actually have zero say in "their" State-owned & party-run production factories.

 

You're saying all that so triumphantly. It's as if I recommended Soviet-style Communism, or in fact, any Communism as a solution!

 

You are truly narrow minded.

 

The whole point is that Captialism as it is practiced today is somewhat Daoistic externally, but it is very militaristic and unilateral internally (inside companies). Ricardo Semler is showing us that Capitalism can work better when it's Daoistic through and through, internally as well as externally.

 

While Ricardo owns the company on paper, in reality his employees own the company in terms of day to day operations. Sure, Ricardo, as a paper owner, can come in and abolish the successful creative chaos that he has unleashed, if he wants to. Or at least, he can try. He might succeed, but that's not a given. He's given people a taste of the new life. You know the expression, "Once you ride an elephant, you can't go back to the donkey?"

 

If you would just wash your ears and listen to what I am saying, you wouldn't be so puffed up right now.

 

You should be capable of criticizing Capitalism. If you are incapable of looking at Capitalism critically, what does that say about you? How are you better than a "Commie" who cannot look at Communism critically?

 

Watch the video. You won't regret it.

Edited April 27, 2010 by goldisheavy

[gendao]

Yes I kind of agree with you - BUT the system depends on the ability to create profit for the owner/shareholder and this is the private owner of the means of production. No one understands what happens when that profit begins to evaporate. The global economy is a kind fabrication designed to work as if the old conditions apply.

Well, if the profits evaporate - some conditions must have changed - and the company must then adapt or fail. Yes, it's a constant struggle - but that is the nature of life. You cannot eliminate that, nor should you necessarily want to (see Trabant). Competitive struggle is what drives evolution (see Lexus).

Life has gone on for billions of years this way. When the climate changed, dinosaurs died...but mammals thrived.

 

There is always more opportunity for more profit for whoever can build a better mousetrap. Or heck, just the next pet rock.

Edited April 27, 2010 by vortex

[goldisheavy]

These are just the mechanisms of control which are solely based on the idea that one or a few people can own the means of production. Marx's analysis was right its just that his solution proved to be unworkable - while Soviet science put a man in space first, its car companies built the Trabant - that says it all.

 

And if you read my posts carefully, what will you find? Do I propose Communism as an answer? Communism had some successes. Capitalism had some too. Communism is far from perfect. So is Capitalism. If we can all stop knee-jerking, we can start to examine issues intelligently.

 

But if we have people like vortex talking like a fanboi about the "beauty of Capitalism" as if it was some divine thing, and then knee-jerking at the slightest criticism of Capitalism as if such criticism was evidence of demonic possession, we will have hard time having an intelligent conversation.

Edited April 27, 2010 by goldisheavy

[gendao]

These are just the mechanisms of control which are solely based on the idea that one or a few people can own the means of production. Marx's analysis was right its just that his solution proved to be unworkable - while Soviet science put a man in space first, its car companies built the Trabant - that says it all.

Well, the Soviets had a bit of a headstart - as NASA wasn't even founded until after Sputnik had already been launched into space.

 

That said, both NASA & the Soviet space program were government programs. So, NASA is not an example of capitalism, but government production too. However, the Soviet space program actually had internal competition - being split between split between several competing design groups led by Sergey Korolyov, Mikhail Yangel, Valentin Glushko and Vladimir Chelomei. Here again, we see how competition breeds success.

Mr. Hudgins said that only the private sector can make prices for a product or service go down as quality goes up, such as with computers, TV sets and the global airline industry. The same is true for making space flights more common for commercial or tourist missions. He pointed to such ongoing private space efforts as those by Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic, Elon Musk's SpaceX in Hawthorne and Robert Bigelow's Bigelow Aerospace.

The whole point is that Captialism as it is practiced today is somewhat Daoistic externally, but it is very militaristic and unilateral internally (inside companies). Ricardo Semler is showing us that Capitalism can work better when it's Daoistic through and through, internally as well as externally.

 

While Ricardo owns the company on paper, in reality his employees own the company in terms of day to day operations. Sure, Ricardo, as a paper owner, can come in and abolish the successful creative chaos that he has unleashed if he wants to. Or at least, he can try. He might succeed, but it's not a given. He's given people a taste of the new life. You know the expression, "Once you ride an elephant, you can't go back to the donkey?"

I agree, a more Daoist business model would be far more efficient.

 

And, capitalism allows anyone to set up any kind of business model they want. It never said you could or couldn't use a Daoist model. In fact, it will eventually self-select the most efficient ones - so Semler's model will probably become mainstream in the future in the free market. Certainly, many companies already practice flex-time, stock options & profit-sharing. And any publically-traded company is already free to be bought up & owned by whoever.

 

Capitalism doesn't force anyone to run their business this or that way, though. I think that's the important distinction here. Whether you want to privately or collectively own your business - it's up to you. The free market doesn't really care how you run your business - it only judges you by your results & naturally weeds out the poorest ones.

 

 

Anyhow, let's keep on track here & debate core tenets of "real" Marxism & Communism. Where's all the angry posters who were ferociously defending either of these ideologies? Let's hear your cases, don't be shy!

Edited April 27, 2010 by vortex

[Apech]

Well, the Soviets had a bit of a headstart - as NASA wasn't even founded until after Sputnik had already been launched into space.

 

That said, both NASA & the Soviet space program were government programs. So, NASA is not an example of capitalism, but government production too. However, the Soviet space program actually had internal competition - being split between split between several competing design groups led by Sergey Korolyov, Mikhail Yangel, Valentin Glushko and Vladimir Chelomei. Here again, we see how competition breeds success.I agree, a more Daoist business model would be far more efficient.

 

 

 

Shot yourself in the foot somewhat there because that is an example whereby the principle of competition can be built into a non-capitalist system. If their car industry had been set up like this then maybe they would have built Ferairris and Rolls Royces?

 

Competition exists in nature and has nothing to do with who owns the means of production.

 

Freedom is a state of being and has nothing to with who owns the means of production.

 

Capitalism does not equal competition.

 

Capitalism does not equal freedom.

 

Despite what the propagandists would have us believe.

[gendao]

Shot yourself in the foot somewhat there because that is an example whereby the principle of competition can be built into a non-capitalist system. If their car industry had been set up like this then maybe they would have built Ferairris and Rolls Royces?

 

Competition exists in nature and has nothing to do with who owns the means of production.

 

Freedom is a state of being and has nothing to with who owns the means of production.

 

Capitalism does not equal competition.

 

Capitalism does not equal freedom.

Not at all. You can have a limited amount of internal competition under Communism - but it will still never compare to the unrestricted freedom & open competition in capitalism.

 

So, a Communist collective with internal competition will beat out one without any...but both will fail miserably in comparison to open competitors out in the free market. Which is why no Communist country ever built a Ferrari or Rolls Royce. That's not propaganda, that's factual reality.

Edited April 27, 2010 by vortex

[RongzomFan]

No. Let's not do that.

 

 

I don't have a problem with corporations. Corporations gave us all the good things in life, including cheap meat.

 

Who else is going to keep food production up with population growth?

 

If anything you should be on your hands and knees thanking corporations for our food supply.

 

Only a handful of companies make most of the food. And they do a damn good job.

Edited April 27, 2010 by alwayson

[goldisheavy]

Corporations gave us all the good things in life, including cheap meat.

 

Wow. Just wow.

[RongzomFan]

Travel around Asia, and see just how much food is a luxury, especially meat.

 

Thats why I don't like staying with certain relatives in Asia. They can only afford meat once a week...if that.

 

Tyson, Cargill, Swift....these corporations should be given the Nobel Peace Prize and the thanks of a grateful humanity.

Edited April 27, 2010 by alwayson

[goldisheavy]

So, a Communist collective with internal competition will beat out one without any...but both will fail miserably in comparison to open competitors out in the free market. Which is why no Communist country ever built a Ferrari or Rolls Royce. That's not propaganda, that's factual reality.

 

Why do you want to keep the discussion focused on bashing the Communism? Why do you avoid keeping the discussion focused on a critique of Capitalism?

 

I can easily give you counter-examples that show where Socialism (no country ever had real Communism established) was superior to Capitalism. But I won't. I don't want to play your game. You're a troll.

[gendao]

Why do you want to keep the discussion focused on bashing the Communism? Why do you avoid keeping the discussion focused on a critique of Capitalism?

If you are not Communist, what do you care? I am simply sincerely trying to learn what some people here seem to love about Communism.

 

Unfortunately, none of them seem capable of actually explaining what they think is so great about it.

I can easily give you counter-examples that show where Socialism (no country ever had real Communism established) was superior to Capitalism.

You already told me about Canada. Yea, it works real well...if you filter out those without higher education, illiterates, no work experience, no prearranged employment in Canada, no family relations in Canada, those who lack $10K, a criminal history or PREEXISTING HEALTH CONDITIONS IN YOUR FAMILY!

 

Lol, that would exclude a majority of Americans here! You see, Socialists know the only way Socialism can work is if they only select the most productive members of a society and ban all the bottom feeders out. These countries are thus basically gated country clubs. And any country that wants to replicate their model - would also have to adopt that same exclusivity policy. People who can't meet those prereqs - can't be allowed to join in the system - or they'd crash it.

 

You can't compare a country club with a homeless shelter, buddy!

Edited April 28, 2010 by vortex