communism/technocracy as an emergency measure

[Dak]

i know there are lots of arguments in favour of capitalism, and arguments against communism, technocracy (the bit about money, not the meritocracy bits), etc, but reguardless of these, do they have merits as temporary emergency measures in the case of a huge economic emergency?

 

a few things to bear in mind:

 

surely, all pros of capitalism have to be ignored in the middle of a stock-market crash or hyper-inflation? reguardless of the benifits to innovation etc that normally come with capitalism, if money is worth so little that its more economical to burn it than to use it to buy firewood or pay for electric heating, or if farmers stop producing food for the cities because it costs more to transport it that it can be sold for, and if no-one, effectively, has any money, capitalism has, imo, at least temporarily failed.

 

it wouldn't have to be permenent: just a temporary, emergency measure untill the economy can be 'rebooted'.

 

democracy is temporarily suspended when it wont work (times of war or national emergency), so i dont see why economic philosophies should be any different (ie, incapable of adopting bad philosophies out of neccesity in emergencies).

 

so, yeah. if the economy/currency collapse, should the govournment take control, provide workers with free food for working and producing stuff, and farmers with free stuff in return for producing food, untill the currency can be re-introduced and stuff like non-essential luxuries lead the way into re-building the economy and, ultimately, re-adopting capitalism?

[Pangloss]

Because short-term communist planning worked out so well for the Soviet Union....

[Dak]

Because short-term communist planning worked out so well for the Soviet Union....

 

bear in mind im talking of situations such as the wall-street crash, or the german hyper-inflation.

 

ie, when the economy is totally screwed to the point where it's not there, even tho everything is still relying on it.

 

communist russia survived for, iirc, ~15 years, and managed to turn the ussr into a super power (before collapsing). surely it would last for long enough to rebuild an economy (assuming one could be rebuilt whilst under a communism), and would be better than living under a capitalist state mid-economic-apocalypse?

[Sisyphus]

In what sense are you using "technocracy?"

 

As for communism, I don't think it can really be instituted, per se (the Soviet Union was hardly "communist"), but perhaps there's a point in socialism. As in, the government creating work and offering jobs to pretty much anyone who wants them, guaranteed. Like FDR's New Deal, which I think was over all a good thing.

[Dak]

better than hoovers 'lets wait for it to fix itself' plan, imo.

 

im using technocracy in the sence of doing away with money and just rationing out what we have untill the crisis is over.

 

although, part of technocracy is just leaving it up to people to want to work, so maybe not... maybe just the having no currency bit.

 

same general principle as the new deal, but a significant step further. like, maybe to the point of just telling people to carry on what they were doing before the currency flopped, taking the fruits of their labour off them, and rationing them out.

 

to give an illustration of how drastic it can be when money/economies collapse, in both the german hyper-inflation and the american crash, crap-loads of people starved; people were rooting round, en mass, in rubbish-bins for food; both these countries were, just prior to the catastrophy, prosperous; all because it got to the point where transporting food cost more than you can sell it for, hence people didn't*. many farmers just fed themselves and stopped supplying the cities. remember that there was no plague of locusts; the countries had the capability to feed themselves, they just didn't because their 'motivation' (money) had temporarily dissapeared.

 

so, if that happens again: should we struggle-through like germany and america did, or do something like switch to an a-monetary communism, so that people are, at least, still working, and food is still being produced and distributed, and then rebuild the economy under these circumstances (ie, without the mass-starvation). seems to me that, if your country relies on the existance of money to make people do stuff, and money effectively ceases to exist, it might be an idea to temporarily switch to a system that gets people to do stuff without using money whilst the money recovers (if that makes sence)

 

---

 

*actually, thats a bit over-simplistic, but you see my point?

[-Demosthenes-]

better than hoovers 'lets wait for it to fix itself' plan, imo.

 

I think it was because of the effect on the mind of the American people, than anything else. At least by looking like he was try people started having faith in the system again, and started spending again.

 

Similarly, a wide range of governments would work in an emergency. It all depends on the mind set of the people. If they all just had faith in the government and the economy then everything would be fine. Like the United States, filled with arrogant people who think their government and economy are indestructible, and because they believe it -- it's true.

[ParanoiA]

I think it was because of the effect on the mind of the American people, than anything else. At least by looking like he was try people started having faith in the system again, and started spending again.

 

Similarly, a wide range of governments would work in an emergency. It all depends on the mind set of the people. If they all just had faith in the government and the economy then everything would be fine. Like the United States, filled with arrogant people who think their government and economy are indestructible, and because they believe it -- it's true.

 

Thank you. Rush Limbaugh, the guy everybody seems to hate in here, has said this time and time again.."the best way to get out of a recession is to not participate in it".

 

I've always thought that made sense. The economy seems to be a balance that relies more on attitude. If everyone would just spend their money as normal, then businesses wouldn't be going under, thereby causing people to get laid off, thereby reducing tax revenue...etc..

 

I almost wish economic performance was kept a secret that only the highest of officials know about. They could lie to us day after day and tell us how everything is smoking right along. Maybe we'd never have another recession.

 

But I'm no economics expert by a long shot. I don't really understand GPI, how the strength of the dollar fluctuates, etc.. So, I may very well be full of crap.

[CPL.Luke]

The main problem with communism and such systems is that there is still an economy and there is still "wealth" in those systems, its just that everyone told the accountants to buzz off. Any system with that premise is bound to implode eventually, case and point being the Soviet Union.

 

consider Dak's original example, the farmers have stopped selling food to the cities at a price people in the city can afford, because of the transportation costs. Now in a capitalist society the government see's this problem and they subsidize the food thats being sold to the city. So now the farmers are able to sell the food to the city, but most importantly the trade imbalance is being covered by anouther portion of the economy (higher taxes).

 

Now lets assume the government solved this problem by converting to socialism, so now there is no more money in the economy. Now there is still that trade deficet where its not profitable to sell product to the city however under the new system that deficet is treated like it doesn't exist, so now its almost as if the money just dissapeared somewhere.

 

THIS IS NOT GOOD FOR AN ECONOMY.

 

 

Thereis some finite amount of wealth in any economy, and in communist countries they thought that if they merely ignored this wealth and everyone chipped in and worked that the economy would keep on going strong, what actually happened was that there were trade imbalances and depressions its just that nobody had any way to keep track of the wealth. The only indicator that something was arrey was the steady decline of the total production, the only option was then to ration, and then ration more, and more, and mor. Until the populatin was so poor that they started to rebel.

[Sisyphus]

 

I've always thought that made sense. The economy seems to be a balance that relies more on attitude. If everyone would just spend their money as normal, then businesses wouldn't be going under, thereby causing people to get laid off, thereby reducing tax revenue...etc..

 

It's definitely not that simple, but there is also definitely some truth to that. However, it doesn't really work on the individual level. "Not participating in it" is distinctly against my personal interest in the event of a recession. I'm spending money I can't afford. And, since the whole idea of capitalism is based on individual interest, it is a rather pointless suggestion unless you're willing to ditch the whole model.

[Dak]

^ as an example, (this is from memory so the figures might be off), ~ 500 banks folded as a result of the wall street crash. the people who had money in these banks lost it. ~4,500 banks folded because people withdrew their money en-mass, out of fear that it wouldn't be there tomorrow.

 

now, whilst it's true that if everyone acted like there was no problem that there would actually be less of one, and whilst you may realise that you're contributing to the problem, you'd have to be quite a martyr to leave your money in the bank to be lost, whilst banks are dropping like flies.

 

---------------

 

consider Dak's original example, the farmers have stopped selling food to the cities at a price people in the city can afford, because of the transportation costs. Now in a capitalist society the government see's this problem and they subsidize the food thats being sold to the city. So now the farmers are able to sell the food to the city, but most importantly the trade imbalance is being covered by anouther portion of the economy (higher taxes).

 

Now lets assume the government solved this problem by converting to socialism, so now there is no more money in the economy. Now there is still that trade deficet where its not profitable to sell product to the city however under the new system that deficet is treated like it doesn't exist, so now its almost as if the money just dissapeared somewhere.

 

THIS IS NOT GOOD FOR AN ECONOMY.

 

i think your missing my point. i certainly dont want this to turn into a communism v capitalism, nor a money v no-money thread.

 

im not suggesting communism is good for the economy. im suggesting communism might be a good idea as a temporary measure if the economy completely collapses, to aid/speed up a transition back to a working capitalism, and to limit the damage in the interum.

 

subsidising farmers wouldn't have done anything, on it's own, in the american recession, because:

 

1/ 60% of americans were unenployed, and thus wouldn't have been able to afford food reguardless of how subsidised it was, unless it was subsidised to the point of being free.

 

2/ with 60% of the population unenployed and wages so low (supply & demand: huge supply of workers, low demand cos buisnesses had folded en mass = workers are very cheap) the govournment would have difficulty sustaining a subsidary of that magnitude due to the pittance of tax it could charge the allready poor 40% of people who had jobs.

 

3/ whilst the halting of the food industry is probably the most severe problem from a human pov, it's certainly not the only one from an economical pov, and subsidising it would do nothing to get the other industries back up and running.

 

also, there was no reason for the trade deficit other than the failing of the currency. remove the currency, and no underlying problems remain, per se.

 

as long as farmers are making food, city-based industries are working, mining is being done, stuff is being transported, etc, etc, there is no trade deficit. all im saying is that if the economy collapses to the point that people can't work for money because the economy/currency has collapsed, maybe we should switch to a non-money based system of doing stuff and then re-introduce a working currency/capitalist system.

 

try to fix the sinking boat, by all means: put it in dry dock, get out of the sinking boat, and then fix it, re-float it, and get back in; but dont stay in it, trying to fix it, whilst its sinking. (although sunk would be a better analogy)

[-Demosthenes-]

Both communism and ignorance are equally good tools against economic ruin. The problem is, in both systems the society has to cooperate for it to work. In communism they have to work and trust that others are working, in an "ignorance" model all they'd have to do is ignore the problem, and many of it's effects go away.

 

I'm not saying one way is better than another, and we always use a little bit of both, but ultimately it's up to the society to cooperate or it won't work. Communism didn't fail because it was a bad system per se, it failed because the society (and probably many others) could not cooperate in that fashion, and the laws of the government had to conflict with what society wanted so badly that they eventually revolted.

 

If everyone wanted to, and would contribute, communism would work fine. But I don't think you would blame me if I thought the most individualist and arrogant people in the world, Americans, would naturally be more inclined to ignore the problem (or not understand it) and go on spending what they were before, blindly beleiving that this is America, so everything will be fine.

 

And because they believe, it will be so.

 

Not everyone does that, and some people only do it part way. That's why economic hardship is not always avoided, but economic ruin has been avoided, were other systems have merely disintegrated.

 

And to make it more complicated, society and government doesn't just use one device (ie "communism," "ignorance," "capitalism," etc.), but many at the same time. Maybe in the US we ignore problems, but the government also tries to remedy them as it see fit, and market forces have their effect. I'm merely suggesting that Americans ignoring their economic problems seems to be one of the top ways the US deals with economic hardship, either purposely or unknowingly.

 

The main point is that, ultimately, it is up to the society. Cooperation or arrogance, the society is deciding what to do, not the government.

[Dak]

Both communism and ignorance are equally good tools against economic ruin.

 

but, it's pretty hard to keep the population ignorant of a collapsed economy

 

If everyone wanted to, and would contribute, communism would work fine. But I don't think you would blame me if I thought the most individualist and arrogant people in the world, Americans, would naturally be more inclined to ignore the problem (or not understand it) and go on spending what they were before, blindly beleiving that this is America, so everything will be fine.

 

And because they believe, it will be so.

 

apart from when it isn't, and the economy collapses.

 

again, im not suggesting you do this now, but if the economy has actually collapsed, when history shows us that people do the comoplete opposite of going on spending, and thus make the problem worse.

 

Not everyone does that, and some people only do it part way. That's why economic hardship is not always avoided, but economic ruin has been avoided, were other systems have merely disintegrated.

 

this is, of course, ignoring the wall street crash, where ruin was not avoided, and disintegration did, in actual fact, occour

 

The main point is that, ultimately, it is up to the society. Cooperation or arrogance, the society is deciding what to do, not the government.

 

but one purpose of a govournment is to protect the people, espescially in times of catastorphy.

 

to clarify, im talking 'emergency' as in 'another wall street'.

 

and, by communism, im not neccesarily talking 'everyone does their bit out of the kindness of their heart', but more 'everyone gets told to do their bit to avoid mass starvation untill the crisis is over'.

[bascule]

Economies bounce back. Humans create value. The more time elapses, the more value humans create.

 

I'm a liberal hippie douche and even I can recognize this simple fact.

[-Demosthenes-]

but, it's pretty hard to keep the population ignorant of a collapsed economy

 

You, my friend, have never experienced conservative America.

 

again, im not suggesting you do this now, but if the economy has actually collapsed, when history shows us that people do the comoplete opposite of going on spending, and thus make the problem worse.

[...]

this is, of course, ignoring the wall street crash, where ruin was not avoided, and disintegration did, in actual fact, occour

 

The Americans of the 30's would never keep spending, they don't have the same frame of mind as we do. Many Americans today are perfectly willing to assume that this country is the best in the world, and nothing can really hurt us.

 

but one purpose of a govournment is to protect the people, espescially in times of catastorphy.

 

to clarify, im talking 'emergency' as in 'another wall street'.

 

and, by communism, im not neccesarily talking 'everyone does their bit out of the kindness of their heart', but more 'everyone gets told to do their bit to avoid mass starvation untill the crisis is over'.

 

Sure, a Wall Street crash would cause economic ruin, but mostly because of it's impact on minds of the people.

 

And government help would also be helpful, mostly in how much it made people feel better.

 

So I was misleading, at a crash or a similar event that would change the mindset of the people to negative, then something would have to be done to change the mindset, sure. But you don't need communism for that; full blown communism has to conflict with society's wants, so that society will eventually rebel (simplification*). What would be better is a healthy dose of socialism to make everyone feel like the government is trying, and bring the society's confidence back up. But I think it's unlikely for something like that to happen, unless there is a major morale destroying event, because of many American people's arrogance and blind faith in their country.

[CPL.Luke]

hmm maybe there shoud be anouther thread on money vs. no money...

 

but ignoring that aspect of the argument, there are several measures that can be put into a capitalist system in times of economic catastrophe, for instance every dollar in a US bank is federaly insured. also if the stock market drops by more than a certain percentage it shuts down. buying on margin is now illegal. And if there's a bank rush the banks shut down to give people a cool off period. And finally there are limits on how much liquid capital a bank has to have at any given time.

 

and in the event that the economy does colapse the government can take out loans in order to cover public works projects etc. in order to get the economy back in order.

 

I have to run rightnow but I'll post more later.

[CPL.Luke]

the point is that capitalism provides a very convenient way to manage a finite amount of resources effectively, if the economy collapses, that means resources weren't allocated properly and this led to problems, however after the economy recovers it has corrected the problems that led it to collapse. If the government acted and implemented communism the problems wouldn't be corrected, just ignored until further damage was done.

 

I see how switching to communism can provide temporary relief in a time of crisis, I just don't see how it could provide a solution to the crisis (or eventually lead back into capitalism) as effective measures to improve the economy and fix the problems would never ave been put in place.

[Dak]

The more time elapses[...]

 

the more people starve

 

You, my friend, have never experienced conservative America.

 

hey...

 

im the brit, it's my job to be overly cynical and bitchy about you yanks

 

 

Sure, a Wall Street crash would cause economic ruin, but mostly because of it's impact on minds of the people.

 

im sorry, demo, but history shows that it really isn't that simple.

 

at the very least, you can't put the german hyperinflation down to attetude, unless you count the german govournments stupid attetude.

 

the wall street crash started a visious cycle. the (entirely justiified) lack of confidence in the economy didn't help, but it wasn't the whole of the problem.

 

I see how switching to communism can provide temporary relief in a time of crisis, I just don't see how it could provide a solution to the crisis (or eventually lead back into capitalism) as effective measures to improve the economy and fix the problems would never ave been put in place.

 

well, i was thinking that the immediate problem is the starvation, which communism would solve pretty much instantaniously.

 

then, as you say, there's the problem of fixing an economy when you dont, in actual fact, have an economy -- not even a broken one.

 

i was thinking that once things had got stabalised, small amounts of wages could be payed, essentials could remain free, but production of luxuries started and the luxuries charged for, as a way of restarting the economy. then, when the currency is back up and running, labour and essentials could be charged for again. et voila, capitalism from communism (if it works)

 

another idea might be a modification of an idea in the us crash (which, iirc, roosevelt was in favour of), which was to take all the money over a certain amount off the ritch people and give it to the poor. i think the plan was to take everything in exess of $5,000,000 from each individual, and you'd have enough to ensure that every single person in the us had at least $6,000; then, charge for stuff and people can start spending (obviously, people can charge decent amounts for food too, solving that problem).

 

instant spending = recovery of industry = solving of unenployment (oversimplification)

 

temporarily switching to communism would have two benifits over not, imo:

 

1/ less starvation

2/ whatever the measures put into place, most people would still have a job when they were introduced, as opposed to the us crash, where, when the measures were put into place, most people were unenployed -- hence industry was still buggered, if only from lack of staff.

 

the communist way, industry might, in theory, be able to bounce strait back as it would be more-or-less fully staffed and operational. simmilarly, mass poverty from mass-unenployment would not be an issue even when the currency was re-introduced.

 

it just strikes me as easyer to keep a country running under a communism than a broken capitalism, and as easyer to switch from a communism to a capitalism than from a broken capitalism to a functional capitalism.

[CPL.Luke]

but like I already mentioned in communism goods are being dlivered through trade deficets, so really your making the whole problem worse by providing that temporary relief.

 

And a capitalist government can easily take out loans in order to make sure essential services are rendered, how do you think roosevelt paid for the hoover dam and all?

 

Its also more important that the rich spend their money on buiding hings rather than on goods and services (which is what would happen if the wealth was redistributed) so the governments main course of action always has to be convincing the rich to build things in a depression.

[-Demosthenes-]

im sorry, demo, but history shows that it really isn't that simple.

 

All I'm saying is that what the people actually think matters the most.

[bascule]

the more people starve

 

"The more people" arguments all belie a massive, exponential increase in human population as science and technology allow us to sustain larger and larger populations.

 

The number of people as a percentage of the total population is the telling network, and while that number may be millions, a few million as a percentage of the total population is less than 1%.

 

I don't think you can temporarily suspend the rules of capitalism and expect capitalism to continue along present trends after you reinstate them. Capitalism is built out of an emergent network of interrelationships, and suspending the rules of capitalism shatters that structure.

[Dak]

but like I already mentioned in communism goods are being dlivered through trade deficets, so really your making the whole problem worse by providing that temporary relief.

 

i dont think there is a problem with deficit with what im suggesting, which essentially boils down to carrying on as you were before the crash, reguardless of the fact that theres no money.

 

if a farm produced x food/month, then, under the emergency communism, it could continue producing x food/month.

 

if it could do it under capitalism with no deficit, then it can, at least temporarily, do it under emergency communism.

 

And a capitalist government can easily take out loans in order to make sure essential services are rendered, how do you think roosevelt paid for the hoover dam and all?

 

Its also more important that the rich spend their money on buiding hings rather than on goods and services (which is what would happen if the wealth was redistributed) so the governments main course of action always has to be convincing the rich to build things in a depression.

 

thats true, apart from the 'ritch people building things', which i dont really get

 

re:redistribution, tho, remember that some people would still have, say, $5,000,000 to the average persons $6,000, and that people would be getting payed different amounts, so there will still be ritch people (who will possably try to capitalise on the situation and tentatively invest in the newly re-emerging economy).

 

 

also, the question isn't just 'would it fix the ecomony', it's 'would it fix the economy, and if so, would it do so faster, and with less people starving, than struggling through'?

 

All I'm saying is that what the people actually think matters the most.

 

during the act of crashing, i think you're right. but once it's crashed, attetude becomes a minor aspect.

 

if 60% of people are unenployed and have no money, they can't just adopt a postitive mental attitude and start spending on stuff that isn't being made anymore by the industry

 

The number of people as a percentage of the total population is the telling network, and while that number may be millions, a few million as a percentage of the total population is less than 1%

 

thats a little harsh. millions starving is still millions starving, reguardless of the percentile.

 

anyway, given the 60% unenployment in the us crash, id assume the percentage malnutrised would not be insignificant.

 

I don't think you can temporarily suspend the rules of capitalism and expect capitalism to continue along present trends after you reinstate them. Capitalism is built out of an emergent network of interrelationships, and suspending the rules of capitalism shatters that structure.

 

all of which would be relevent, barring the fact that we wouldn't want capitalism to continue along the 'present' trend, given that it's present trend, in the situation under discussion, would be at the arse-end of a crash.

 

we spescifically want to reinstate it and have it not continue along the trend it was on when the communism was started.

 

i get what your saying, but bear in mind this isn't a choice between capitalism and communism, it's a choice, over the short-term, between absolutely failed capitalism or comunism.

 

hmm... what would be the basics that you need to allow the transition back? industry, currency, and confidence?

[bascule]

all of which would be relevent, barring the fact that we wouldn't want capitalism to continue along the 'present' trend, given that it's present trend, in the situation under discussion, would be at the arse-end of a crash.

 

Speak for yourself. I think the present trend brings us ever closer to Singularity, which I believe represents the ultimate moral good mankind can accomplish.

 

we spescifically want to reinstate it and have it not continue along the trend it was on when the communism was started.

 

If you're going to try communism you better be in it for the long haul. Parastrokia practically destroyed the Russian economy, and it's been in a long-term lull out of which it may never pull.

 

i get what your saying, but bear in mind this isn't a choice between capitalism and communism, it's a choice, over the short-term, between absolutely failed capitalism or comunism.

 

I think in the types of situations you're describing, any means of pulling the country out of it are justifiable, however making the transition back to capitalism would be very much a painful one.

 

hmm... what would be the basics that you need to allow the transition back? industry, currency, and confidence?

 

The privitization of communally-owned capital. Somebody gets it. But how do you decide?

 

Hell, I want a f*cking factory...

[Dak]

If you're going to try communism you better be in it for the long haul. Parastrokia practically destroyed the Russian economy, and it's been in a long-term lull out of which it may never pull.

 

not if you only go into it temporarily. also, economy = allready destroyed at this point.

 

im not talking years. im talking the bearest amount of time neccesary.

 

I think in the types of situations you're describing, any means of pulling the country out of it are justifiable, however making the transition back to capitalism would be very much a painful one.[...]

 

The privitization of communally-owned capital. Somebody gets it. But how do you decide?

 

Hell, I want a f*cking factory...

 

 

well, if everyone carried on with the jobs they had previously, then the owner would still be in charge, and responsable for running it during the emergency. i dont see why it couldn't just go back to being owned by whoever owned it beforehand, including shares still being valid.

[CPL.Luke]

Dak you seem to be operating under the assumption that economic crashes like the one in the 1930's occur just because alot of people went out and sold their stock one day.

 

These crashes occur because of deep underlying causes related to the way the economy was built, or how money is loaned out and for what purposes. In the case of the 1930's crash buying on margin had made it so that the market was effectively running with more money than was present in the economy. Thanks to the way accountaints work this practice made the markets shoot through the roof, and made alot of money for alot of people. However this practice produces false economic gains and only appears to wor while the economy is doing well, and the moment that things start to go sour the entire thing collapses.

 

That is what happened in the 1930 crash and possibly in china very soon

 

 

you can't just tell everyone to keep doing what their doing and have everything work out, especially in an age of foreign investment (you can't tell foreign companies to keep sending shipments that cost millions of dollars without any payment)

[-Demosthenes-]

during the act of crashing, i think you're right. but once it's crashed, attetude becomes a minor aspect.

 

Dak, what was the difference between the world before the stock market crash (during the depression) and after? Is there some physical change? Something tangible?

 

No, it was all in their minds. There were the same amount of factories, the same amount of products, the same amount of food, everything was exactly the same before except what the people thought of the economy.

 

It really was a "depression," in both the economic and the psychological sense.

 

Before the Depression (the 20's) US citizens just thought the economy was perfect. They would borrow insane amounts of money and buy stock, and everybody was making money at it. Stock that was worth almost nothing was worth thousands, all because of the people's faith in that value.

 

Now, if something like lack of food or some other raw material were to trigger an economic problem, then the solution is quite different. But big economic crashes aren't caused by lack of materials very often. In developed countries food is never a problem, no one starved in the Depression if they were willing to stay in a line (grandpa's stories ). Other materials (example: oil) do effect the economy, but usually don't ruin it. These are often far seen, and don't usually come with as much surprise.

 

What causes an economic crash is the loss of faith.