The World’s First Poor Rich Country

[Grigoris]

Why? Because "dictatorship of the proletariat" implies that there exist non-proletarians that are oppressed.
Any society that needs oppression besides the natural social/psychological control of its members (except for criminals and outright psychopaths and sociopaths) is an unjust one. It does not matter whether the oppressed are proletarians or any others.

No it doesn't. It implies that the proletariat is freed from the oppression of the bourgeoisie and becomes the class that dictates the functioning of society. Once the proletariat is freed, and the means of production are collectivised, then there is no bourgeoisie, there is only a proletariat class dictating it's own functioning.

[boda]

Do you see how different these two notions of ownership are? One is the capitalist one: I’m a private owner, which is to say a selfish, profit-maximizing, soulless human calculator. The other is a social democratic one: I’m a public owner, we own these good together, we share them collectively, we are stewards of them.

That’s easy for me to see. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that public ownership is inefficient because it lacks profit motive, and is prone to corruption. Private ownership obviously doesn’t always serve the public good, however. CEO’s are like warlords who take care of themselves first, shareholders second, and have little if any concern for the public.

It’s also hard to argue for the efficiency of private ownership in areas like healthcare, considering that the USA pays far more per capita than many nations and with similar health outcomes.

Note: I liked the article but it was a bit hyperbolic, which weakened it somewhat for me.

[tatpurusa]

Why? Because "dictatorship of the proletariat" implies that there exist non-proletarians that are oppressed.
Any society that needs oppression besides the natural social/psychological control of its members (except for criminals and outright psychopaths and sociopaths) is an unjust one. It does not matter whether the oppressed are proletarians or any others.

No it doesn't. It implies that the proletariat is freed from the oppression of the bourgeoisie and becomes the class that dictates the functioning of society. Once the proletariat is freed, and the means of production are collectivised, then there is no bourgeoisie, there is only a proletariat class dictating it's own functioning.

Exactly. This is the dogma. I know it because I heard it ad nauseam. I was, so to say, grown up with this propaganda. Reality is different though.

[Kim O'Hara]

How else to explain the tendency of so called liberals to justify the system of oppression?

The political system is so skewed in the U$ that what passes as liberal there would be considered mainstream center-Right in Europe.

Oh yes, definitely. I mean our most succesful ex-minister of finances (that is being demonized by our current PM and most of the populist asshats ) is quite conservative, however even he said few weeks back that he would tax the hell out of big companies because they are responsible for the crisis.

America is probably the most dysfunctional country in the 1st world and I am surprised it has managed to hold itself together so far. Elections there are a joke on every level and some laws and procedures are too old to function in modern times.

Getting back to the topic ...

desperate-people.jpg (84.8 KiB) Viewed 2146 times

Kim

[Queequeg]

Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that public ownership is inefficient because it lacks profit motive, and is prone to corruption. Private ownership obviously doesn’t always serve the public good, however. CEO’s are like warlords who take care of themselves first, shareholders second, and have little if any concern for the public.

I don't think that either what you call the Conservative position and the social democratic option (public ownership) are the only two options.

There are ways to make corporations answerable to stakeholders like employees, customers, vendors, the general public, etc. In the US we adhere to very strong property rights, so we don't like to put affirmative obligations on corporations toward parties other than the owners. So we try to exert control through negative means like regulation and taxation. We end up with a lot of regulations and an unwieldy, easily gamed tax code.

There are other options - for instance in labor relations, the German model, as I understand it, puts ownership and labor in a collaborative posture by enhancing employer obligations toward employees. In contrast, in the US we have employment at will as the default. The argument there is that both sides have maximum freedom to negotiate. Without cataloging the ways, I'll declare, this is a total fantasy, and quite to the contrary, the present rules skew heavily in favor of employers. But, even when we have strong labor protections, the fundamental assumption is that employers and employees should be in adverse positions, each aggressively seeking the best deal for themselves, thereby settling at some general level of fairness. Its generally a far cry from mutual trust and cooperation.

Other things would be to temper limited liability so that officers and principals are more readily liable for a company's acts. There is personal liability in cases of intentional wrong acts, but still not as much as common sense would dictate. Some reckless acts open principals and officers to personal liability, but I can't think of any such case for negligence.

There's also no reason, other than the absolute opposition of the business lobby, why we can't have laws stating that a corporation that is formed under the laws of a particular state, that enjoys the benefits provided by the state, must take into account the public impact of certain decisions. For instance, a corporation that has enjoyed tax breaks might be required to consider the impact on the community that extended tax breaks when relocating a factory.

There is nothing preventing us from making corporations take the public good into account, except those corporations with their armies of lobbyists and unlimited campaign funding.

Not that its a model that should be replicated, but the East Asian models of commercial organization with their close cooperation with governments, can offer other models. It also helps that there is an assumption in those societies that companies exist to employ people, as much as they exist to make a profit for their owners.

So, its not necessarily the details of the structure of the society but rather the values that inform the decisions that is really the key. The system of rewards and punishments can play a role, but if people are generally rotten, sending them to church will probably just corrupt the church. We Americans are pretty rotten at this point in time.

[boda]

Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that public ownership is inefficient because it lacks profit motive, and is prone to corruption. Private ownership obviously doesn’t always serve the public good, however. CEO’s are like warlords who take care of themselves first, shareholders second, and have little if any concern for the public.

I don't think that either what you call the Conservative position and the social democratic option (public ownership) are the only two options.

Any effective option would be great. I was just trying to point out what I understand to be a major obstacle to reformation, some portion of the society that believes in "small government" and is by definition unprogressive. Maybe there's a way for the private sector to become 'public owners, owning goods together, sharing them collectively, and being stewards of them' without government intervention? Or something like government incentivizing co-opting somehow.

[Queequeg]

Any effective option would be great. I was just trying to point out what I understand to be a major obstacle to reformation, some portion of the society that believes in "small government" and is by definition unprogressive. Maybe there's a way for the private sector to become 'public owners, owning goods together, sharing them collectively, and being stewards of them' without government intervention? Or something like government incentivizing co-opting somehow.

In this country, that bunch of a-holes has been incentivized only when a revolution was threatened... we need a another Roosevelt.

[PeterC]

Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that public ownership is inefficient because it lacks profit motive, and is prone to corruption. Private ownership obviously doesn’t always serve the public good, however. CEO’s are like warlords who take care of themselves first, shareholders second, and have little if any concern for the public.

I don't think that either what you call the Conservative position and the social democratic option (public ownership) are the only two options.

There are ways to make corporations answerable to stakeholders like employees, customers, vendors, the general public, etc. In the US we adhere to very strong property rights, so we don't like to put affirmative obligations on corporations toward parties other than the owners. So we try to exert control through negative means like regulation and taxation. We end up with a lot of regulations and an unwieldy, easily gamed tax code.

There are other options - for instance in labor relations, the German model, as I understand it, puts ownership and labor in a collaborative posture by enhancing employer obligations toward employees. In contrast, in the US we have employment at will as the default. The argument there is that both sides have maximum freedom to negotiate. Without cataloging the ways, I'll declare, this is a total fantasy, and quite to the contrary, the present rules skew heavily in favor of employers. But, even when we have strong labor protections, the fundamental assumption is that employers and employees should be in adverse positions, each aggressively seeking the best deal for themselves, thereby settling at some general level of fairness. Its generally a far cry from mutual trust and cooperation.

There's a different argument for collective bargaining which is based in a game theoretic view of public vs. private information. Costly and mutually damaging company/union fights occur because they have different private information. The company knows things about its profitability, competitiveness and outlook that the labor does not. Labor knows things about the welfare and alternative options of their members that the company does not. These things are represented in bargaining but that information is not always credible. So in some countries - and Japan is the classic example - labor is given formal representation in the company's senior management, so that they have access to the same private information that the company has. This in theory reduces the incidence of costly misunderstanding of each side's private information. It is, however, hard to disentangle this from the broader social contract, which varies considerably by country, and can change over time. Until the late 1990s, for instance, it was actually illegal for companies to make workers redundant in Korea. The asian financial crisis forced them to change that, but it took a while for society to accept the change.

[Queequeg]

There's a different argument for collective bargaining which is based in a game theoretic view of public vs. private information. Costly and mutually damaging company/union fights occur because they have different private information. The company knows things about its profitability, competitiveness and outlook that the labor does not. Labor knows things about the welfare and alternative options of their members that the company does not. These things are represented in bargaining but that information is not always credible. So in some countries - and Japan is the classic example - labor is given formal representation in the company's senior management, so that they have access to the same private information that the company has. This in theory reduces the incidence of costly misunderstanding of each side's private information. It is, however, hard to disentangle this from the broader social contract, which varies considerably by country, and can change over time. Until the late 1990s, for instance, it was actually illegal for companies to make workers redundant in Korea. The asian financial crisis forced them to change that, but it took a while for society to accept the change.

Interesting. I didn't know that labor actually had a formal place in senior management in Japan. Not surprising, though. You mention the different social contracts countries have. There're deep seated ideals about harmony and mutuality in Japan that are totally incomprehensible to Americans. In the US, for better and worse, we have to deal with this ornery Anglo/capitalist culture we have. It would be interesting though to see if private information improved relations and cooperation. I can vaguely remember some anecdotal evidence of something like this and it working out. But usually in American business, if we talk about tradition, what comes to mind is Carnegie calling Pinkertons to beat the crap out his employees.

[PeterC]

There's a different argument for collective bargaining which is based in a game theoretic view of public vs. private information. Costly and mutually damaging company/union fights occur because they have different private information. The company knows things about its profitability, competitiveness and outlook that the labor does not. Labor knows things about the welfare and alternative options of their members that the company does not. These things are represented in bargaining but that information is not always credible. So in some countries - and Japan is the classic example - labor is given formal representation in the company's senior management, so that they have access to the same private information that the company has. This in theory reduces the incidence of costly misunderstanding of each side's private information. It is, however, hard to disentangle this from the broader social contract, which varies considerably by country, and can change over time. Until the late 1990s, for instance, it was actually illegal for companies to make workers redundant in Korea. The asian financial crisis forced them to change that, but it took a while for society to accept the change.

Interesting. I didn't know that labor actually had a formal place in senior management in Japan. Not surprising, though. You mention the different social contracts countries have. There're deep seated ideals about harmony and mutuality in Japan that are totally incomprehensible to Americans. In the US, for better and worse, we have to deal with this ornery Anglo/capitalist culture we have. It would be interesting though to see if private information improved relations and cooperation. I can vaguely remember some anecdotal evidence of something like this and it working out. But usually in American business, if we talk about tradition, what comes to mind is Carnegie calling Pinkertons to beat the crap out his employees.

They usually have board representation in some form. There's a long and complex relationship between management and labor, and a lot of etiquette involved - for instance, unions are usually single-company, strikes are largely symbolic and not disruptive, and there's the famous incident where the founder of one of the major electronics groups responded to a strike by taking a bucket and mop and going to clean the toilets himself. It's not so much a desire for superficial harmony as a presumption that all sides need to cooperate to achieve the best collective outcome - something which sadly has been almost completely abandoned in US business these days.

There's a lot more variety across countries than is generally acknowledged. Even in the 'anglo' world, the UK, Canada and Australia looked very different from the US for most of the latter half of the 20th century.

[Kim O'Hara]

...There's a lot more variety across countries than is generally acknowledged. Even in the 'anglo' world, the UK, Canada and Australia looked very different from the US for most of the latter half of the 20th century.

We still do, though not as different as I would like.

Here's my attempt to map some of the range - viewtopic.php?f=47&t=33212#p525083


Kim

[Grigoris]

Exactly. This is the dogma. I know it because I heard it ad nauseam. I was, so to say, grown up with this propaganda. Reality is different though.

Yes, reality is different. But the reality you lived in was not the dictatorship of the proletariat, it was the dictatorship of the party.

In reality somebody always gets oppressed. The question is do we have oppression of the many by the few (oligarchy) , or oppression of the few by the many (democracy)?

I am not an idealist.

[Queequeg]

It's not so much a desire for superficial harmony as a presumption that all sides need to cooperate to achieve the best collective outcome - something which sadly has been almost completely abandoned in US business these days.

I guess I expressed a little skepticism about harmony （和）but, no its not superficial at all. Its a gut level conviction for many Japanese. How its actually manifested - a skeptical person like myself will find the cloud of the silver lining. I think that across East Asia there is a similar sense of group dynamic. Its a dominant factor in why East Asian societies work the way they do which I don't think translates well outside of the context.

There's a lot more variety across countries than is generally acknowledged. Even in the 'anglo' world, the UK, Canada and Australia looked very different from the US for most of the latter half of the 20th century.

The difference is, those nations don't compare in terms of economic potential. Also, they don't have the same rebellion in their heart. They didn't tell the king to f himself. They kept some semblance of ancient order to restrain them. We started with idealism where we subordinated common law to our contrived Constitution with its noble but perhaps naive ideals, rather than the more sober common law sensibility. Once we start spinning out into idealism, we're really living in a fantasy. Our fantasy has prioritized making money over every other consideration. We reap what we sow.

Back to my initial conclusion... its really about values.

[Queequeg]

Our fantasy has prioritized making money over every other consideration. We reap what we sow.

America is what happens when the petit bourgeoisie get to be in charge. LOL

[boda]

Back to my initial conclusion... its really about values.

Sure, but how do you think they would need to change exactly?

[Queequeg]

Back to my initial conclusion... its really about values.

Sure, but how do you think they would need to change exactly?

Pretty simple.



What is an ass hole you ask? I think we know one when we see one.

[Grigoris]

America is what happens when the petit bourgeoisie get to be in charge. LOL

The petite bourgeoisie are small self-employed businessmen without employees: the grocery shop owner, craftsmen, etc...

They are definitely not in charge of the U$.

[Queequeg]

America is what happens when the petit bourgeoisie get to be in charge. LOL

The petite bourgeoisie are small self-employed businessmen without employees: the grocery shop owner, craftsmen, etc...

They are definitely not in charge of the U$.

They evolved in this country into the titans of the universe because they were in charge. They brought their ethos to grander and grander scales. The problem is, that ethos - the protestant work ethic, the whole Pull yourself up by the bootstraps mentality, when scaled up, turns into this grotesque, petty minded system.

[Grigoris]

Back to my initial conclusion... its really about values.

Values?

Capitalism is built on sucking the blood of working people. It is about using your resources in order to make people work for you and then taking the profit generated by their labour.

It is an inherently greedy and catastrophic system, as it requires to expand the limits of it's control/exploitation constantly, in order to ensure access to resources and that more and more wealth is produced (for those holding the capital). This wealth then, over time, tends to be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands as more people are alienated from the "means of production" (as Marx called them) ie capital.

Marx (in Das Kapital) did not give a blueprint for how to destroy capitalism, he pointed out inherent flaws in the system that lead to it's own destruction. The Communist Manifesto basically gives advice on how to organise for the upcoming collapse, but it is actually devoid of any substantial information or analysis. Das Kapital on the other hand is four hefty volumes of extremely detailed economic and mathematical analysis and proof.

A dead boring and hideously dense read, to say the least. The Grundrisse (the outline/notes to Das Kapital) is actually much more interesting and contains political analysis too.

[Queequeg]

Well, if this shutdown lasts months, maybe I'll take a look. In the meantime, dharma study seems more pragmatic.

I admit I don't know much about Marx or much political theory outside of what I learned in school and bits and pieces I picked up. That's neither here nor there, though. I have a lifetime of experience that tells me, whatever formal rules we put in place, if the people following the rules are jerks, its not going to work no matter how well thought out. Sooner or later everything collapses. And the common denominator in every political and economic disaster seems to be that humans have a tendency to be nasty little shits. As far as I know, Marx didn't figure that problem out.