Left-wing discussion

[Caid Ivik]

Why couldn't services be strategical? There are many countries, where i.e. tourism is a main source of wealth (it isn't only in poor countries, look at Switzerland). Of course, it is impossible for the whole world, but for some parts there can it be. Look at Dune universe: everything is based on services, transport provided by the Guild. Everything depends on it, because it makes the production effective. Like today. Some countries are unable to produce enough food, so they need to import it. And only this service makes overproducing countries really, efficiently productive.

[Egeides]

I finally decided to read this whole thing... There is one point I'd like to mention:

All finances are government-controlled. Your wages will be calculated on how well you serve the community compared to your potential. Therefore, a brilliant accountant will be paid more for doing accounting than otherwise. If you are serving the community at your full potential (ie no laziness, doing whatever will help the community most), then you will receive the maximum payment, based on how much is being produced by the country. NB, if there is a lack of teachers, an accountant might be paid more to be a Maths teacher. Council work will be paid at a good level as well.

Hence, shopkeepers will not profit from what they take in; goods will be bought by plastic card, shopkeepers will be paid by the government. Corruption is impossible, because there is no means by which it can occur, if all money is issued by the government.

1- How do you evaluate the potential?

2- Don't you think that having one sole government is to put all eggs in one basket? I personally truly believe that diversity is ESSENTIAL to the survival of mankind (strong influence from Dune here).

3- If you believe that everything being controlled by governments is a good thing, I propose you study the Sovietic government. I don't believe very easily in a state MONOPOLY, don't you? Here again, diversity is crushed...

So, comments?

I'm espescially interested in comments from Nema and EdricO ;)

[Edric O]

Well, I can't speak for Nema, so I'll just give you my personal thoughts on the matter:

1. There is no way to objectively determine a person's potential. So this is where I disagree with Nema. People must be paid not in relation to what we think they're able to do, but in relation to what they have done in the past, and what their peers are doing now.

2. What do you mean? You can't have two different governments for the same country, can you? So we must choose the best one.

3. The problem with the Soviet Union was not that the government controlled the economy, but that no one controlled the government. Therefore, the government had absolute power over the people, which lead to absolute corruption. And corruption lead to incompetence and oppression, which lead to the collapse of the USSR.

[SpiceGuid]

SpiceGuid: No economy can be driven by services, because services do not produce anything. The base of any economy has to be production.

How right you are! Those politics promise us better paid jobs and better careers if we embrace a "client service" approach. But all we have is more and more precarious job contracts without much career perspectives.

[Tenzul]

Tak dostanu stipendia, ved nejaka firma im to zaplati, budu chciet predsa novych ;)

Stipendia? Prosim ta nebud smiesny. Na to nebudu peniaze. Teraz

skoly vyberat peniaze nemozu a robia to. Co si myslis ze sa stane

ked sa to zlegalizuje. ::)

Mimochodom, co ti nie uplne chudobny co ihc nedostanu, budu potom

na tom predsa este horsie nez ti najchudobnejsi.

Long live the LEFT.

[Egeides]

Well, I can't speak for Nema, so I'll just give you my personal thoughts on the matter:

1. There is no way to objectively determine a person's potential. So this is where I disagree with Nema. People must be paid not in relation to what we think they're able to do, but in relation to what they have done in the past, and what their peers are doing now.

2. What do you mean? You can't have two different governments for the same country, can you? So we must choose the best one.

3. The problem with the Soviet Union was not that the government controlled the economy, but that no one controlled the government. Therefore, the government had absolute power over the people, which lead to absolute corruption. And corruption lead to incompetence and oppression, which lead to the collapse of the USSR.

2. There is only one government, but there is no need to put all power in the hand of government. Power can also be in the hands of private people to which limits/rules are given for exemple.

3. Do you believe in etatic bureaucracies?

[Edric O]

2. All power must be put in the hands of the people, through a combination of a democratic government that represents their interests and elements of direct democracy. Private corporations DO NOT represent the interests of the people, and as such they are very similar to feudal lords, whose only concern was to exploit the people as much as possible without having them rebel.

3. A bureaucracy? Certainly not! Bureaucracies are parasitic bodies, and they have caused the fall of many powerful nations. I support a technocracy that serves the interests of the people.

[Egeides]

What is "technocracy"?

And how do you expect to not have corporations since SOMEONE has to take some private decisions... Besides, when I say corporations I didn't necessarily meant privately owned corporations. Wasn't entering this aspect. Not only states and individuals can own them: it can be small communities, can me cooperative, can be a mix...

[zamboe]

Technocracy is not good neither wrong.

Technocracy is neutral.

It cannot serve only the interest of the people, it serves the best interest of the society (which people is part of).

[Egeides]

What IS it? A centralized system directed by universities? A for of anarchism?...

[Edric O]

A technocracy isn't a political system (just like a bureaucracy isn't one). It is a concept that refers to having competent/skilled people in charge. A technocrat is a government member that doesn't have any connection with politics, and who got into office because he knows how to get the job done.

I don't think I understand your comment about corporations... I mean, my definition of "corporation" is a hugely powerful, privately-owned multi-national enterprise.

[Egeides]

Well technocrats have interests like everyone else. Like everyone else in a bureaucracy. How do you bring them from bureaucrats to pure technocrats?

[Caid Ivik]

Your view on technocracy is very close to Aristoteles' view on aristocracy. Let the experts, living only for ruling rule! Not very bad system, but sometimes the people want to elect someone else, who have also practical experience with normal life. Cold technician can make an awesome theory, but those who will be chosen to bring it to life, would only shake their heads by it. Such system is maybe in USA, where all work is done by army of aides.

And I've forgotten, if there are only SOME people capable to rule, then why you talk it as about left-wing theory?

[Edric O]

First of all, the technocrats don't have all the power. Far from it! They only represent the executive branch.

Second, all their power comes from the people, and the people can vote "no confidence" in their leaders at any time. This is a democracy, Caid. All the power is ultimately in the hands of the people. This makes it libertarian. What makes it left-wing is the economic system. (remember, the left/right scale is for economics)

Thirdly, you separate the competent from the incompetent (technocrats from bureaucrats) by giving them several tests that they must pass, of course. But being competent is not enough - they must also be approved by the people.

[Caid Ivik]

You mean technocrat is an executor of governments command? Then they are similar to bureaucrats. You mean it is just an effective officeman. But technocracy as political system is a rule of such experts. Some kind of scientistic takeover, to say in remembrance of Ascendancy.

I disagree with right/left scale as only economical. Maybe I read to much from P.Johnson, but it has MUCH wider usability.

[Edric O]

I mean the executive branch as in the actual government itself.

There are 3 powers in a state:

Legislative (i.e. the parliament)

Executive (i.e. the government)

Judicial (i.e. justice courts)

[Caid Ivik]

Then are the USA best form of technocracy.

[Acriku]

USA has a lot of mixtures in its government...

[Egeides]

Caid: No, since it stops many of its good elements for money reasons. And someone wont go up if he doesn't have certain specific opinions (teachers and journalists were fired, the administration works in such a way, etc.).

USA is more "dollarocratic" in this sense since it the ones that are rich will see their sons and daughters in better positions by default and people that have no money will by default see the consequences of it on their progeniture.

[Edric O]

Indeed. Egeides is correct.

Also, Caid, those 3 separate powers exist in any modern state - their separation is one of the core principles of modern democracy. They're not anything new.

[Caid Ivik]

Who is from wealthier family has naturally wealthier life. What the hell is wrong about it? People without any wealth live only for today and would never want to rule a country. Only to make a revolt and loot everything possible.

Please EdricO, don't teach me still. I know it all.

[Edric O]

People without any wealth live only for today and would never want to rule a country. Only to make a revolt and loot everything possible.

Typical elitist crap... "we are so much better than those stupid poor people, so we should rule and oppress them". ::)

Who is from wealthier family has naturally wealthier life. What the hell is wrong about it?

Hmmmm, let's see... you support having a rigid class structure with people from wealthy families always staying filthy rich regardless of whether they work or not, and people from poor families having no way to rise out of their misery.

Gee, I wonder what could be wrong with that? ::)

[Warlord Ripskar]

You really haven't a clue about the real world existance of a constitutional monarchy do you Edric?

You seem to be fixated upon some notion akin to Stalinism. Rigid class structure with no movement? No, capitalism dictates that if you don't manage your assets correctly your wealth will decline and you or your descendents will be relegated to the lower classes, similarly if you invest wisely your assets will grow and your descendents have a much better chance in the world due to the fact that they can have a better education, have the ability to make their own investments, start their own financial moves. They can employ people thus giving them jobs, a source of income and the ability to manage their own finances.

the result of communism is Homo sovieticus where there is no incentive to work hard and no incentive to progress.

[Egeides]

Who is from wealthier family has naturally wealthier life. What the hell is wrong about it? People without any wealth live only for today and would never want to rule a country. Only to make a revolt and loot everything possible.

Please EdricO, don't teach me still. I know it all.

So you agree that USA is not meritocracy and say it's better like this? (nb: I believe you're wrong about the "populace"'s good will)

Ripskar: Well if this works (let this out), it is not meritocracy. Someone who has more wealth has more chances in the future.

[Warlord Ripskar]

Never said it was pure meritocracy.

The fact remains that money attracts money, but you still have to make the best of the opportunities presented to you. You can do much more good with money than you can without it.

eg. Foreign investments;

This is the root of imperialism so I don't expect a dyed in the wool commie like Edric to like this...

The developing world is in dire need of foreign investment. If you only have a small amount of money the best you can do is to give to charity who then set up projects in the developing world. But this does not provide a long term solution to the problems opf the developing world. If you have a substantial ammount of money you can invest it in companies in the developing world which then employ people boosting the country's economic outlook. These people no longer have to rely on handouts and charity, they can decide for themselves what to spend their money on rather than have some beuraucrat decide for them. The cash flow invigorates the entire area around the company improving the standard of living for these people.

This also generates profit for the company which translates into larger dividends for the shareholders, ie, you. The dividends can then be reinvested in more companies in other parts of the developing world repeating the cycle and the effect snowballs.