This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Communism Solution?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
Explain how government offered incentives is anything other than government control?
Because it's putting production levels in the hands of individuals with individual wants and desires and motives. The principle behind government control of capital is to prevent selfishness from influencing decisions and production (and distribution). By providing incentives for production, you are putting selfishness back into the equation.
The government doesn't control the level of production, it pays out incentives in accordance with a formula it's set in place. Giving people a tax benefit for having insurance isn't control - it influences people, definitely, but the government still has no control over insurance coverage.
Historically, yes, but that doesn't mean future communism can't offer incentives.
Communism is government control of economy. How it controls the economy is inconsequential to defining it as communism.
Post by
TheMediator
Alright, let me sum this up -
-Selfish and Maxing your own utility are different?
-No, a selfish act is one that maximizes your own utility.
-Wrong! cuz it can benefit others
-but that's a side effect of the maximizing utility.
-no, if you're helping someone out to make yourself feel better, its not selfish
-Yes, that is exactly what selfishness is, helping someone for
yourself
-Nuh uh!
/end
You lost deepthought.
Post by
Deepthought
Alright, let me sum this up -
-Selfish and Maxing your own utility are different?
-No, a selfish act is one that maximizes your own utility.
-Wrong! cuz it can benefit others
-but that's a side effect of the maximizing utility.
-no, if you're helping someone out to make yourself feel better, its not selfish
-Yes, that is exactly what selfishness is, helping someone for
yourself
-Nuh uh!
/end
You lost deepthought.
What a pointless post.
Post by
MyTie
FIGHT!
Post by
TheMediator
What a pointless post.
What a pointless post.
Post by
Deepthought
What a pointless post.
What a pointless post.
You're right, I'm sorry. It's perfectly redundent to point out how pointless a single post of TheMediators is, because all posts by TheMediator are pointless.
FIGHT!
FYI, I'm taking this unironically.
Post by
TheMediator
What a pointless post.
What a pointless post.
You're right, I'm sorry. It's perfectly redundent to point out how pointless a single post of TheMediators is, because all posts by TheMediator are pointless.
FIGHT!
FYI, I'm taking this unironically.
What a pointless post.
Post by
MyTie
Ok, knock it off you two, or you'll give Skyfire an escuse to lock a MyTie thread.
Post by
TheMediator
Ok, knock it off you two, or you'll give Skyfire an escuse to lock a MyTie thread.
I think you just jinx'd yourself there buddy.
Post by
Skyfire
Ok, knock it off you two, or you'll give Skyfire an escuse to lock a MyTie thread.
/lock.
For what it's worth, I agree with Mediator's summary.
Post by
MyTie
Ok, knock it off you two, or you'll give Skyfire an escuse to lock a MyTie thread.
/lock.
For what it's worth, I agree with Mediator's summary.
I'd like to hear your response to the OP.
Post by
TheMediator
Ah... my IB4TL comment was erased. :)
Post by
Squishalot
Lol.... ok, back to the topic.
Historically, yes, but that doesn't mean future communism can't offer incentives.
Communism is government control of economy. How it controls the economy is inconsequential to defining it as communism.
Not sure how much you know about public-private partnerships - government ventures being run by private companies. Would you consider assets constructed and operated under such ventures as 'government control'? (general question - I'll elaborate depending on how you view them)
Post by
MyTie
Lol.... ok, back to the topic.
Historically, yes, but that doesn't mean future communism can't offer incentives.
Communism is government control of economy. How it controls the economy is inconsequential to defining it as communism.
Not sure how much you know about public-private partnerships - government ventures being run by private companies. Would you consider assets constructed and operated under such ventures as 'government control'? (general question - I'll elaborate depending on how you view them)
yes
Post by
Squishalot
Then this just illustrates an example of how 'government control' doesn't necessarily result in a non-capitalist outcome.
I believe that providing incentives will result in something similar - where the government doesn't truly have control, they only have a broad influence.
I'm just wondering how 'communist' a government can be if it starts incentivising? I know you say that historically it's the case, and it doesn't restrict future versions of communism from offering incentives. But if it fundamentally shifts away from the core principles, is it still communism? Shouldn't we re-label it then?
Post by
MyTie
Communism : Community controled economy
Capitalism: Market controled economy
HOW DOES OFFERING INCENTIVES CAUSE THE GOVERNMENT TO LOSE CONTROL OF THE ECONOMY?
Just becuase there is an incentive doesn't mean that it is capitalistic. Incentive =/= capitalistic. Sure, capitalistic system is based on drive, desire to self prosper, and incentives play into that, but it doesn't mean that communism cannot also have incentives.
Let me give an example. This might be a little rough.
Let's say that there is Christmas dinner, and Thanksgiving dinner. Let's say that someone serves turkey on Christmas dinner. Does that mean it is really Thanksgiving, and not Christmas at all, since turkey is usually associated with Thanksgiving? Not at all.
Just because Thanksgiving and turkey go hand in hand, doesn't mean that Christmas cannot also have turkey.
Just because Capitalism and incentives go hand in hand, doesn't mean that Communism cannot also have incentives.
Post by
Squishalot
No, just saying that production is a fundamental driver of the economy, and that without controlling the level of production, you can't really control the economy, only broad influence.
Suppose you're the MD of Ford. You give your staff production targets, and incentivise them for producing more. The next day, you walk in and find everyone in one department worked through the night, and produced three times more than you expected, and thus, you're forced to pay them all bonuses, and are subsequently stuck with a load of car parts that you can't store, because you're out of inventory space and the next department didn't overproduce too. That's lack of control, no?
I'm generally of the opinion that incentives result in a lack of control for those people purporting to be in charge. Look at investment bankers and lending managers.
Then consider where this is all coming from, going back to the original point.
Do you mean that people recieve different rations based on the amount/difficulty of their labour?
Everyone could be given a rating. Reports from their bosses, education level, job difficulty, that works as a multiplier on their ration. Also the actual people could be distributed to the work needed to be done. If the software needed more milk produced, for increase in demand for egg nog, it could distribute more laborers to farms... etc...
By offering rationing incentives, you're allowing the market to determine production. Consumers, the people, will determine how much they demand, and work accordingly to get the incentives to obtain it. We're back to a market system.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Essentially it all comes back to what I said at the beginning of the thread....ultimately this resembles free-market capitalism but with the government as a middle-man. If I work hard in a free market I get the fruit of my labors. In this system, if I work hard I get reimbursed by the government instead.
So again I ask, why give the government a job that it doesn't need to be doing?
Post by
Squishalot
Essentially it all comes back to what I said at the beginning of the thread....ultimately this resembles free-market capitalism but with the government as a middle-man. If I work hard in a free market I get the fruit of my labors. In this system, if I work hard I get reimbursed by the government instead.
So again I ask, why give the government a job that it doesn't need to be doing?
Because we can (should) trust a community-based government to do the right thing, moreso than a selfish private institution?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Because we can (should) trust a community-based government to do the right thing, moreso than a selfish private institution?
That's an assumption I'm not willing to make. And I think history supports me.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.