[dsswoosh]

Let's put things in the mixing pot, just for fun.

We take one good dose of Capitalism, where healthy competition leads to diverse, cheap and interesting products and services. We add a dose of Communism where the State owns the goods and Services and pays everybody equally. And then we mix it up in one sociological mixing pot.

What would be the results? How could this type of society be accomplished?

Anybody?

[The Clockwork Rat]

What you mean is, "If I throw a bunch of words in to this text box here, then hit submit, what will people's reactions be?"

To which I can answer: "What the fuck are you talking about?"

[Zagadka]

I do. It is called syndicalism.

Essentially, the syndicate replaced the corporation. Instead of stocks selling, every employee essentially owns their part of the company (making it essentially a co-op). This retains the semi-free market for business, and government is minimalized (well, kinda, still a social democrat, so education and medical care would be part of it).

[Decky]

We add a dose of Communism where the State owns the goods and Services and pays everybody equally.

For the love of god read a book.

Communism doesn't in anyway entail being being payed equally, where has this fallacy sprung from? Do you honestly think the soviets were giving nuclear physicists equal pay to street sweepers? Do you honestly think a worker that completed double his quota got payed the same as one who did half?

[Daktoria]

I dunno, that's what capitalism + communism means to me.

[Dagoth Ur]

Class struggle doesn't end no matter how much the capitalists emulate communists. Either way the rich will do away with the parts that help workers, or the workers will do away with the parts that help the rich. Given that the OP is clearly a top-down implementation it'll probably be the rich guys who win.

[Conscript]

You get a schizophrenic state trying to defend private property rights and at the same time unite workers with common property.

Just go with what daktoria said.

It's also probably not syndicalism.

[Daktoria]

Thank you Conscript.

[Paradigm]

You get a schizophrenic state trying to defend private property rights and at the same time unite workers with common property.

Seems doable if you maintain private property rights but make people pay for the privilege.

[Dagoth Ur]

So you get to keep your private property if you have enough private property (ie capital)?

[Paradigm]

So you get to keep your private property if you have enough private property (ie capital)?

You get to keep your private property if you pay all the rents that you receive from it.

[Dagoth Ur]

So yeah, the Capitalists get to keep everything they've stolen from their workers if they can pay rent on it.

[Paradigm]

So yeah, the Capitalists get to keep everything they've stolen from their workers if they can pay rent on it.

For fuck's sake, do you even get what rent is? The whole point is that people would no longer receive any surplus value from ownership. Thus, the efficiency of property ownership is preserved, but the privilege it lends its owner is abolished.

[Dagoth Ur]

For fuck's sake, do you even get what rent is?

No. Explain.

The whole point is that people would no longer receive any surplus value from ownership.

If they cannot extract value from ownership then there is no need for ownership except to create conflicts over usage.

Thus, the efficiency of property ownership is preserved, but the privilege it lends its owner is abolished.

Private Property has no meaning if it does not lead to privilege. The privilege is the whole point.

[Paradigm]

No. Explain.

Rent is the surplus value derived from owning a resource, so as to impose an opportunity cost upon others.

If they cannot extract value from ownership then there is no need for ownership except to create conflicts over usage.

Bullshit. I can enjoy having my own home without having the additional benefit of being able to sell it for a higher price. Same goes for a factory: If you put it to productive use, it can still serve a useful function, even if you don't get the surplus value from owning it.

[Daktoria]

Why would you ever operate something without receiving a profit?

That's just dumb. You're forcing people to associate with communities who don't necessarily appreciate who they are.

[TropicalK]

What is "surplus value?" and how is it calculated?

[Paradigm]

Why would you ever operate something without receiving a profit?

There's a difference between capital returns and rent. I'm similarly talking about the excess return from owning the land. To the extent that there is a capital surplus, that will go away more slowly as capital becomes more widely available. Then the socialist dream of workers owning the means of production will be achieved, but no through coercive confiscation of private property, but simply through the market adapting to a situation in which the free lunch is taken away from the rentiers.

What is "surplus value?" and how is it calculated?

The surplus value in this case would be rent, i.e. the surplus received by applying labor and capital to one location versus the same application of labor and capital at the margin of production.

The way to calculate rent is: R = GR - Kn * IPF - e

Where R = rent, GR = Gross Revenue, Kn = capital at time n, IPF = Installment Plan Factor, and e = expenses

IPF = i + 1/n + t

Where i is interest and t is time(I think. I'll have to scrounge through my notes a little more).

For land, the equation may be simplified as R = CF - Kn

Where CF = cash flow = GR - e

[Daktoria]

There's a difference between capital returns and rent. I'm similarly talking about the excess return from owning the land. To the extent that there is a capital surplus, that will go away more slowly as capital becomes more widely available. Then the socialist dream of workers owning the means of production will be achieved, but no through coercive confiscation of private property, but simply through the market adapting to a situation in which the free lunch is taken away from the rentiers.

I'm glad you posted those formulas for Tropical because that was going to be my next question.

You have a lot of problems with those formulas.

First off, government can assess capital and interest rates at will.

Second, you're still killing all semblance of profit which begs the question over why anyone would want to operate anything.

You don't operate capital just to pay the bills. You operate capital because you want more than what you have right now in the future. You want to improve your standard of living. Yes, you have friends who you want to help improve too, but a socialist scenario forces people to be friends with those who they don't trust. Forget economics, it's just socially unsound because you're forced to have relationships with people you don't know or approve of.

(Not that it means anything but I think IPF = 1+i^(t/n). t = time, n = # of payment periods per year)

[Paradigm]

First off, government can assess capital and interest rates at will.

Good thing government doesn't have to assess those. They just need to assess land values, and that will get most of the rent.

Second, you're still killing all semblance of profit which begs the question over why anyone would want to operate anything.

People can still profit from producing goods and services. That doesn't change at all. It does make absentee ownership untenable, but I'd consider that a good thing. Those who want to maintain private ownership of a business had better at least perform management duties(which is still a form of labor). There would also be greater opportunity for co-ops and self-employment.

You don't operate capital just to pay the bills. You operate capital because you want more than what you have right now in the future. You want to improve your standard of living.

And? You could have all these things by applying labor to capital, just as before. What you can't have is any unfair advantage over others by seizing upon some scarce resource and holding it for ransom.

Yes, you have friends who you want to help improve too, but a socialist scenario forces people to be friends with those who they don't trust. Forget economics, it's just socially unsound because you're forced to have relationships with people you don't know or approve of.

You say this as if capitalism doesn't pair you with people you'd rather not associate with. The scenario I'm talking about would offer a much greater freedom of association than currently exists.