 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
I have to disagree with Che. I think the great misinterpretation of "dictatorship of the proleteriat" was at the root of so much of the failure of "communism" as it came about. Why should all politics be controlled by a single party? and if a single party, why not allow for more diversity in that party? And make everyone a member period, unless they choose actively not to be in it? |
Since everybody is a worker in a communist country, as the state owns the means of production, "dictatorship of the proleteriat" means that the country is run all the citizens.
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Also, I do think that Marx's economic interpretations were wrong. While I tyhink he was right to say that only at a certain point of production can communism come to the fore (points that none of the countries in which communism came to the fore had actually reached), he did not grasp the development of the middle class, he failed to see how its class identity would be as strong as that of the workers, and how with time and the development of capitalism it would eb the middle class that would come to the fore as those industries that are chiefly about the means of production would become secondary to those in which services would come to the fore (lowering the distance between the worker and the output since in the service sector there is really nothing doividing the worker from his output). |
I am assuming you use "middle class" here to refer to upper echelons of white collars and professionals (lawyers, doctors, architects, etc.) instead of the historical meaning. That is, those who were between landowners and workers - in other words, capitalists.
I don't see Marx is wrong per se since the so called middle class is just another group of workers. Some of them may own certain means of production (e.g. doctors running their own clinics), and might be more properly placed in the "small capitalists" group, but the basic classification is still intact.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fez
Sorry but the workers cannot have control of the company or there will be problems. If each worker can exert an equal voice, the company will collapse. |
Fez you know some corperations give all their workers shock, so each worker owns part of the company and share the profits. Also if the workers have enough shares they can even have a vote, a strong one in the company. Of course their is still a CEO and broad of directors. So in a sense in some companies this is being done, allthough I dont know how sucessfull it has been.
As for the rest of you who want corperations to be more democratic, first off I think that you are capitalists, that is not ture Communism, but I see how you try to avoid government controll and let the workers controll the company and let corperations stay in place. Well there is some communism in that. I would say though what about the people who put their lives work into the company or investors that have risked lots of their money to buy the shock of the company? Should not they also have just as much a say in how the company is run? ALso remember the goal any company is to make money.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fez
Correct me if this is wrong, but doesn't that have something to do with those 401k plans? I am not sure what those are but I been hearing about them.
Albeit very little. In fact I wouldn't call it communism, but a mixed form of moderate socialism. Even socialism is too strong of a word.... |
It is not 401k plans. I know some airlines, i forgot which ones has given their workers shock in the company, not as part of the 401k plan. They even advertisized this fact in the past that their workers own the company.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Communism can allow free enterprise.. since when?
|
Marx, Engels, Mill. Read "Kapital", "On Liberty", and Poppers "Open Society".
Communism is no antithesis to capitalism.
quote:
that isn't communism. And not even close to it. If the workers are given stock in the company, that is in fact capitalism
|
Au contrare, it is elements of communism in capitalism. To have a purely capitalist society, one would have every human in competition with each other, at least, according to your logic about communism.
Even in todays society, the two philosophies merge and produce something viable. In essense, todays Western societies are [s]poor[/s] interpretations of communism. Put less simplistically, any working society has to have elements of communism in it, and as such, communism in a society, like all things, is a sliding scale. One cannot simply discretely say "this is communism, whereas this is not".
But one thing that one must get ones head round, is that communism can allow capitalism, and in the libertarian interpretations of communism (not authoritarian stalinism), capitalism can indeed be more efficient than today in Western societies, as competition create unnecessary impedence to innovation, progressive attitutes thus progress, and thus market opportunities.
Large companies instead are allowed to become megacorps, which hurt people via political corruption and the infamous human rights abuses of globalisation, and hurt the market by impeding smaller companies, which tend to be more efficient at producing a product, more innovative, whilst equally profitable per head of employee and shareholder.
That is why I propose a completely free market, the government having nothing to do with capitalism, until these corps become so large that they breach the Mill Limit, in which case, they shuold be dealt with. That would keep economies at peak efficiency and productivity in any case.
All things have their limits, all things are a sliding scale. Lets not view the world in a simplistic discrete way.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-06-2003 08:50
You spew out so much nonsense you can't even understand what transparency means. Get to the economics textbooks before you say stupid things. 
. Sorry but it simply is not the case.
|