How would communism reward good work and punish bad work? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15141531
B0ycey wrote:
Your mean they started making big money by entering the global market on an export economy. An economy that is by and large state run.

Some people call it a hybrid economy. In many ways it is. But their success isn't down to capitalism and in no way can it be described as Capitalistic country in any regard. Its success is because they actually know what they are doing and have entered into capitalism markets whilst maintaining their own state run system.



This, unfortunately, is geopolitical-management-think -- we can't escape that revenues and profits ultimately come from the exploitation of *labor*, and China's laborers are *very* exploited:



Most significant was the restoration of capitalism in China and its opening up to global corporations. China, which became a source of cheap labour production in the 1980s through the establishment of special economic zones, opened up still further. The Tiananmen Square massacre of June 1989 was the signal by the Chinese Communist Party regime that it stood ready, by whatever means necessary, to ensure the exploitation of the Chinese working class by global capital.

In the first period of the Clinton presidency, beginning in 1993, the US economy enjoyed rising profit rates as a result of the boost provided by the exploitation of cheaper labour, paid as little as one thirtieth of US wages.

However, the basic tendency identified by Marx began to reassert itself from around 1997, when the average US profit rate began to turn down. As a result, the accumulation of profits by financial means, which had grown by leaps and bounds in the 1990s, became increasingly vulnerable.



https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/0 ... x-f17.html



---


Also:



The income generated by state-owned enterprises accounted for about 40% of China's GDP of USD 14.4 trillion in 2019, with domestic and foreign private businesses and investment accounting for the remaining 60%.[31]



Direct foreign investment in China, which totaled about USD 1.6 trillion as of the end of October 2016, directly and indirectly contributed about one-third of China's GDP and a quarter of jobs there.[34]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_China




Foreign direct investment (FDI) has been an important part of Chinese economy since the 1980s. During the Mao period, most foreign companies halted their operations in China, though China remained connected to world economy through a limited scale of international trade. Since 1978, China was again open to foreign investment and within two decades it became the largest recipient of foreign direct investment among developing countries.[1] While China's acceptance of foreign investment is commonly associated with Deng Xiaoping’s policies, Chinese leaders including Mao Zedong and Hua Guofeng already acknowledged the need to import foreign capital and technology in the early 1970s. The investments from the 1970s up till the 2000s mainly focused on the manufacturing sector, earning China the label “world’s factory”. However, female migrant workers who contributed to the growth through participation in the foreign-owned manufacturing sector had to work in poor conditions, with insufficient labor protection, and under restricted migration opportunities due to the hukou system.[2]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_d ... t_in_China




Special economic zones (SEZs) in mainland China are granted more free market-oriented economic policies and flexible governmental measures by the government of China, compared to the planned economy elsewhere. This allows SEZs to utilize economic management which is more attractive to foreign and domestic businesses. In SEZs, "...foreign and domestic trade and investment are conducted without the authorization of the Chinese central government in Beijing" with "tax and business incentives to attract foreign investment and technology".[1]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_e ... s_of_China
#15141534
Rancid wrote:Not a reference to China. They are not communist (i.e. private investment and ownership is allowed).


Trade can take place between any economic models as long as both markets agree on exchange. So it is possible. It is hard to visualise how it would work, but being the closest example of Communism we have today is the Amish (although they will not say that), I would say nations would exchange goods in the Communist nation for currency and in return buy goods back using what they accumulated.
#15141537
B0ycey wrote:
@ckaihatsu, I never mentioned exploitation of the workforce. But nobody can't say the Chinese don't work hard which is the theme of the thread.



No prob.


B0ycey wrote:
Trade can take place between any economic models as long as both markets agree on exchange. So it is possible. It is hard to visualise how it would work, but being the closest example of Communism we have today is the Amish (although they will not say that), I would say nations would exchange goods in the Communist nation for currency and in return buy goods back using what they accumulated.



A few points:

- The Amish never *industrialized*, so they don't have the benefits or the complexity that result from such.

- Socialism is *not* a bureaucratic-elitist state, or Stalinism. It's *supposed* to be the dictatorship of the proletariat, meaning that *workers* organize to repress the bourgeoisie and to produce for themselves.

- Socialism is not 'market socialism', because the very use of 'currency', or 'barter' implies the need for a *state* (for issuing the currency, and for handling trade disputes), which then is not socialism, it's bureaucratic-elitism / Stalinism.

- A revolutionary workers international movement of proletarian revolution would not have any interest in 'trade' with still-capitalist areas -- such would be undesirable and counterrevolutionary in direction. The point of revolution is to *revolutionize*, meaning to bring privately owned factories under worker-collective control -- the factories' own workers -- so as to *not need* capitalist production anymore.
#15141538
B0ycey wrote:Give it time. China is catching up.

Another China lover.
China is an authoritarian nation that realized communism does not work. Once they used capitalism the economy improved. It is a combination of state and private capitalism. That changed, however, as all socialists they remain authoritarian. You may be a socialist, but you are indirectly making the case for capitalism.
#15141543
Rancid wrote:Doesn't this make it not communism?


Marx never went into detail on what Communism would look like. He certainly didnt say you couldn't trade though he envisaged no borders so there is that. As long as you are stateless, collective ownership, work to your ability and take what you need, that should pretty much tick all of the boxes for Communism I would say.
#15141546
B0ycey wrote:Marx never went into detail on what Communism would look like. He certainly didnt say you couldn't trade though he envisaged no borders so there is that. As long as you are stateless, collective ownership, work to your ability and take what you need, that should pretty much tick all of the boxes for Communism I would say.



Marx was a brilliant man and described the imperfections of capitalism quite well. It is not surprise that in every generation you find sympathizers with Marx. His analysis of capitalism was correct and on the money. His message remains very compelling to the young and the idealists. The problem with Marx is that the proposed solutions did not work. The commies always defend this by saying "that was not true socialism". :knife: :knife: Meanwhile, they tell you they will somehow do socialism better. :lol: :lol:
#15141548
Unthinking Majority wrote:Capitalism often provides incentive for working harder, more efficiently, smartly, more innovation etc. while providing disincentive for the doing the opposite. How would socialism/communism reward people who work harder, more efficiently etc and punish those who work slower, work less, work less efficiently etc?


This assumes that capitalism rewards individuals working hard, efficiently, or intelligently. While this may be true of some individuals, there is huge quantities of systemic waste in capitalism, and a cursory look at a typical office will show huge quantities of waste. Where is this utopian market economy the question assumes exists? In my experience, in a good capitalist working environment you do the bare minimum to not get fired or achieve a goal, and not a single ounce of effort more - and those individuals that do otherwise are exploited, not rewarded.

Ultimately the question is flawed - you're asking about rewarding individual effort while the metric is a form of systemic success. In any case, socialist societies have demonstrated an ability to innovate and be thought leaders - the Chinese space program outpaces the US these days, as did the USSR in its day. Cuba has been far more successful and efficient at correcting significant problems such as infant mortality, malnutrition or literacy (even North Korea performs admirably on these metrics compared to capitalist states at a similar level of economic development, not to excuse that regime.)
Last edited by Fasces on 07 Dec 2020 01:10, edited 3 times in total.
#15141549
B0ycey wrote:
Marx never went into detail on what Communism would look like. He certainly didnt say you couldn't trade though he envisaged no borders so there is that. As long as you are stateless, collective ownership, work to your ability and take what you need, that should pretty much tick all of the boxes for Communism I would say.



As I mentioned before trade, in a *revolutionary* context, would be undesirable and counterrevolutionary. Trade is problematic because it implies *exchange values*, even if such are currency-less -- a commune could 'shop around' for the best offer from other communes for a produced basket-of-goods.

Trade is also problematic because it connotes a *folksy* image of individuals exchanging farm-made goods over a fence, or something.

Post-capitalist communism would *not require* exchanges or exchange-values of any kind because all social production would be *pre-planned* -- similar to online ordering today, in the sense of just-in-time production / small inventories. Communism would be *free-access* and *direct-distribution*, so that goods go from the manufacturer, to already-specified consumers, *directly*, without any need for retailing (or money, of course).

Marx, as an activist, was an *anarchist* -- he addressed events *locally*, and didn't have a 'big picture'.


Julian658 wrote:
Marx was a brilliant man and described the imperfections of capitalism quite well. It is not surprise that in every generation you find sympathizers with Marx. His analysis of capitalism was correct and on the money. His message remains very compelling to the young and the idealists. The problem with Marx is that the proposed solutions did not work. The commies always defend this by saying "that was not true socialism". :knife: :knife: Meanwhile, they tell you they will somehow do socialism better. :lol: :lol:



Yeah, Marx was an anarchist / localist -- it's better to study the Bolshevik Revolution for a historical example of what a proletarian-revolutionary movement actually looks like.

Your condescension, though, is unwarranted. I posted a model framework I developed to this thread, today, so that too can give a sense of real-world viability for a stateless, moneyless, propertyless society.
Last edited by ckaihatsu on 07 Dec 2020 01:18, edited 1 time in total.
#15141550
B0ycey wrote:
Marx never went into detail on what Communism would look like. He certainly didnt say you couldn't trade though he envisaged no borders so there is that. As long as you are stateless, collective ownership, work to your ability and take what you need, that should pretty much tick all of the boxes for Communism I would say.


I would argue that communism cannot be achieved unless it is implemented internationally.

MIX SYSTEMS! RAH RAH RAH!
#15141551
Fasces wrote:
This assumes that capitalism rewards individuals working hard, efficiently, or intelligently. While this may be true of some individuals, there is huge quantities of systemic waste in capitalism, and a cursory look at a typical office will show huge quantities of waste. Where is this utopian market economy the question assumes exists? In my experience, in a good capitalist working environment you do the bare minimum to not get fired or achieve a goal, and not a single ounce of effort more - and those individuals that do otherwise are exploited, not rewarded.

Ultimately the question is flawed - you're asking about rewarding individual effort while the metric is a form of systemic success. In any case, socialist societies have demonstrated an ability to innovate and be thought leaders - the Chinese space program outpaces the US these days, as did the USSR in its day. Cuba has been far more successful and efficient at correcting significant problems such as infant mortality, malnutrition or literacy (even North Korea performs admirably on these metrics compared to capitalist states at a similar level of economic development, not to excuse that regime.)



Where the World's Unsold Cars Go To Die

Image

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05- ... ars-go-die
#15141555
ckaihatsu wrote:Your condescension, though, is unwarranted. I posted a model framework I developed to this thread, today, so that too can give a sense of real-world viability for a stateless, moneyless, propertyless society.

Yes, I was a bit condescending.

A stateless, moneyless, propertyless society sounds a lot like ants in a colony. This time i am not trying to be condescending.
#15141558
Julian658 wrote:
Yes, I was a bit condescending.



Hey, you're *raising kids* -- it seeps out. (grin)


Julian658 wrote:
A stateless, moneyless, propertyless society sounds a lot like ants in a colony. This time i am not trying to be condescending.



Yeah, that's the stereotype -- people apply it whole-istically, unfortunately, when it's really about modernizing the *political economy* to match our era of *industrialized mass production*. Unfortunately the social paradigm of *enforced scarcity* prevails even though we produce enough to give *everyone* comfortable lives.

I'll suggest maybe pondering the following structure -- if you think it's generically valid, then how could these components be *arranged*, politically-economically, to benefit the greatest numbers of people? (And see my model if you have the time.)


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image
#15141584
B0ycey wrote:Your mean they started making big money by entering the global market on an export economy. An economy that is by and large state run.

Some people call it a hybrid economy. In many ways it is. But their success isn't down to capitalism and in no way can it be described as Capitalistic country in any regard. Its success is because they actually know what they are doing and have entered into capitalism markets whilst maintaining their own state run system.


This is false. There's obviously still state run businesses but there's also a lot of private businesses. There's a large private sector in China, and the private sector makes up the majority of the GDP in the country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform

You're also simplifying their success, it's not just "they know what they're doing". It comes down to many factors such as a massive labour (and consumer) base that work for cheap wages, having enough advanced infrastructure to support Western demand for manufacturing and industry, strong political stability to reassure foreign investors, substandard health and safety standards which reduce costs, willingness to break any rules they can get away with (ie: stealing foreign IP, producing huge amounts of counterfeit goods etc.).

You can't just duplicate their success elsewhere in a place like Vietnam or North Korea because they're never going to have a billion people coupled with other factors like already-existing infrastructure networks.
#15141586
Fasces wrote:In my experience, in a good capitalist working environment you do the bare minimum to not get fired or achieve a goal, and not a single ounce of effort more - and those individuals that do otherwise are exploited, not rewarded.

And how does this compare to socialism/communism. What is the reward in communism to work beyond the bare minimum to achieve a goal?

Ultimately the question is flawed - you're asking about rewarding individual effort while the metric is a form of systemic success. In any case, socialist societies have demonstrated an ability to innovate and be thought leaders - the Chinese space program outpaces the US these days, as did the USSR in its day. Cuba has been far more successful and efficient at correcting significant problems such as infant mortality, malnutrition or literacy (even North Korea performs admirably on these metrics compared to capitalist states at a similar level of economic development, not to excuse that regime.)
[/quote]
I agree there's some things in socialism that do things better than capitalism. That's why the best governments have government-run sectors like space exploration or the military or some kinds of research and education. And there's a reason why any effective capitalist country has those things run or funded by the state. I'm not for lassez-faire capitalism or neoliberalism.

On the other hand, there's a reason why China privatized most of its economy. It's more effective in most industries. The market is just much more efficient at most things, because you're letting individual consumers and business people make most of the economic decisions and you don't have massive top-down bureaucracies doing guess-work. A person is going to know exactly what food they want to buy based on what they like and the market price, and companies know how much to charge and how much to produce based on this demand/supply. Markets are mostly self-regulating, but obviously I'm in favour of government regulation to fill in the gaps where needed to prevent abuse and instability etc.
#15141593
Unthinking Majority wrote:And how does this compare to socialism/communism. What is the reward in communism to work beyond the bare minimum to achieve a goal?


Your question is unclear. Are you talking about individuals or societies?

Regarding societies - it is clear that communist societies are just as capable of innovation as capitalist ones.

Regarding individuals - I don't believe either communism or capitalism rewards working hard in any particular capacity because they're economic systems. Extrinsic motivating factors are generally weaker than forms of intrinsic motivation, and rewards in capitalism are entirely and utterly removed from effort. If I stuck a million dollars in a blue chip index fund and sat on my ass drinking all day not thinking, not innovating, and not expending effort, I'd get rewarded many times over than performing back breaking and repetitive labor in a sweatshop.

So the question isn't really a question. It's a statement, a false statement, masquerading as a question as a rhetorical device. You can keep JAQing off or you can be a man and actually try to defend a written position. :roll:

On the other hand, there's a reason why China privatized most of its economy.


Define privatized. China's system of privatization is more akin to a delegation of ownership or a lease than true private ownership.

The market is just much more efficient at most things, because you're letting individual consumers and business people make most of the economic decisions and you don't have massive top-down bureaucracies doing guess-work.


A market isn't capitalism. On one hand, capitalism is focused on the creation of wealth and ownership of capital and factors of production, whereas a free market system is focused on the exchange of wealth, or goods and services. Capitalist economies frequently - but not always - use a market, but they're two separate concepts. A firm that enjoys a monopoly, for example, can be capitalist without participating in a market.
#15141602
Unthinking Majority wrote:This is false. There's obviously still state run businesses but there's also a lot of private businesses. There's a large private sector in China, and the private sector makes up the majority of the GDP in the country.


This is the thing. We have users claim the Democrats are Socialists. Perhaps that is the misunderstanding. Nobody can fathom what it is. China is described as a hybrid economy. That is to say there are elements in its society that allows free enterprise that would be found is a Capitalistic society. But how it is run, well that is by definition Socialism. So should it overtake the US economy - which is will, the whole debate of lazy Socialist is moot. Nobody deliberately works shit because that is just not human instinct. Did the hunter gatherer not hunt or gatherer because the stock market hadn't been invented I wonder?

You're also simplifying their success, it's not just "they know what they're doing". It comes down to many factors such as a massive labour (and consumer) base that work for cheap wages, having enough advanced infrastructure to support Western demand for manufacturing and industry, strong political stability to reassure foreign investors, substandard health and safety standards which reduce costs, willingness to break any rules they can get away with (ie: stealing foreign IP, producing huge amounts of counterfeit goods etc.).


China do know what they are doing because they know how to expose the contradictions of Capitalism to their advantage. We have heard it all. They deliberately weaken their currency, they have a cheap labor force, business is moving East, they invest in other markets, they close up their own market from outside, they have are building an army, they build mega cities, they are an exporting economy blah blah blah. All these things are moving the pieces of the chessboard which can only be achieved by government initiative. It was the bourgeois greed that gave them their upperhand not that they had a billion labor force. They wanted to maximise their profits and the Chinese were happy to let them. And they did that without changing their economic model. And like how the Socialists from Shithole Russia caused a revolution, fought and won against the 'white army' and turned that shithole into a superpower state even though according they shouldn't have had the will to do so, China will win the game of Capitalism also. And they will do it by playing with Socialism pieces. Why? Because the bourgeois keeps on handing over their pieces in exchange for pawns.
#15141606
Rancid wrote:How does a communist nation function in a global capitalist system?

They can try to do socialism in one country, which was state policy under Stalin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_one_country
#15141616
This came to mind.
https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm
Socialist Competition (or Emulation)
The notion of “Socialist Competition” was first raised by Lenin in the earliest days after the Revolution to deal with the problem of the motivation of work in the absence of the profit motive. Lenin's approach was the call to “organise competition” which meant that: “All communes must compete with each other as practical organisers of accounting and control of labour and distribution of products,” emphasising this process in contrast to the imposition from above of uniform approaches and standards. Underlying Lenin’s proposal was the conviction that so long as workers saw the firm as their own property by virtue of their participation in the Soviet government, then workers would be responsive to such a call.
See Lenin’s article How to Organise Competition?, written on December 24 1917, but not published until January 1929.
In his article Emulation and Labour Enthusiasm of the Masses, Stalin made pains to distinguish “socialist emulation” from the notion of “competition” as the aim was one of cooperation with other workers, not their annihilation. This speech coincided with the ultimate failure of the “turn to the peasants” and reliance on the Kulaks, and the beginning of forced collectivization.
The later Stakhanovite campaign was successful in achieving superlative feats of labour on the part of individual workers and in promoting “socialist emulation” to force other workers to aim for these often-impossible work rates. The campaign was less successful, however, in inspiring “practical organisers of accounting and control of labour and distribution of products,” leading more frequently to a habit of misrepresenting production and targets and undermining planning efforts.
Nonetheless, it is worth recognizing that the conception of workers of working “working for themselves” may not always and everywhere be sufficient, and some means of motivating individual performance was and is always necessary to supplement motivation based on a commitment to the communal interest.

Is this the news from the UK for today? Why did an[…]

It's not yet impossible, although some definitely[…]

Agree, a slum in the DR looks far worse than that[…]

The War on Cuba Part I and II

Cuba's isolation centers: https://youtu.be/elfGi[…]