11–20 of 56 posts
Perhaps every worker has a different threshhold for what they will settle for in terms of what amount of the harvest they would like to retain.
All the HR people reading HN know exactly what I'm talking about.
"Work hard, don't work hard — everyone gets the same," he says. "So people don't want to work." Many people point to this idea as the main weakness (or stupidity, depending on whom you speak) of Socialism as originally proposed by Marx. However, AFAIK (and I'm definitely not an expert on this), Marx saw socialism as a post-industrial step, to be developed in countries like German, France and the UK. On the other hand…
His model of human nature and projections for capitalistic growth were also totally off. Correct. The model of human nature proposed by Karl Marx was demonstrably incorrect, and the demonstration continues in the few countries that continue to proclaim allegiance to Marxist thought. An interesting fact about free-enterprise (Marx might say, "capitalist") economies is that they are based in part on the writings of Ada…
Smith did not advocate laissez-faire capitalism. He was against any kind of cartel, oligopoly, or monopoly, and wanted the state to be more powerful than corporations, not controlled by corporations. Marx was right about capitalism but wrong about incentives.
Both of them should be drawn from in the creation of a next generation economic system.
From my bad and distant memory;
The terms of the contract stated that you had to give X amount to the collective from your land, anything over and above this you kept. The X amount was originally set to be the same as the previous years harvest. The local collective had to raise the amount X a few times so it would appear that they where role models within the system.
It was only after other farmers in the region saw the results that they copied the process. It was eventually turned into the standard for a lot of China.
There are differing versions of the same story around depending on what the politics are for the writer. This version sticks to the American line of "The officials swore at him, treated him like he was on death row.". The Chinese version probably made the villagers look like model, conforming, hardworking and communist loving citizens.
I am neither American or Chinese, I am just fascinated by history and the differing ways it is represented. "History is written by the winners."
Even in the year 2012, after all these years, Americans still need to hear stories that directly outline why communism doesn't work, and good old competitive capitalism is the way of the future.
I wonder how many of you reading this in America even stopped to think about the message you're being fed.
I wonder how many of you reading this in America have absolutely no clue the rest of the developed world does not feed this kind of thing to it's citizens.
Stay clear of those evil commies...
"Work hard, don't work hard — everyone gets the same," he says. "So people don't want to work." Many people point to this idea as the main weakness (or stupidity, depending on whom you speak) of Socialism as originally proposed by Marx. However, AFAIK (and I'm definitely not an expert on this), Marx saw socialism as a post-industrial step, to be developed in countries like German, France and the UK. On the other hand…
The root flaw in Marxism is the labour theory of value. It just doesn't lead to a workable theory of economics. That wasn't clear at the time he wrote Das Kapital , because the leading summation of economics was Smith (which I believe Marx worked from), and Smith got it wrong also. The concept of repeated crises of capitalism leading inexorably to socialism relies entirely on a slender reed that turns out to be broke…
I figure the only way to make it possible is through the ability to pick & choose members, and exile members. Not to be elitist, but rather to protect the community from those who would abuse it.
If everyone works hard, everyone gets to keep more. Because more is produced. If only some work hard, then the whole group cannot produce as much. Perhaps every worker has a different threshhold for what they will settle for in terms of what amount of the harvest they would like to retain. All the HR people reading HN know exactly what I'm talking about.
Game theory tells us this kind of system will fall apart practically instantly.
I forget the details, but I think Marx tried to dismiss that problem through an appeal to nationalism.
I'm getting down voted to oblivion for this... Even in the year 2012, after all these years, Americans still need to hear stories that directly outline why communism doesn't work, and good old competitive capitalism is the way of the future. I wonder how many of you reading this in America even stopped to think about the message you're being fed. I wonder how many of you reading this in America have absolutely no clu…
I'm getting down voted to oblivion for this... Even in the year 2012, after all these years, Americans still need to hear stories that directly outline why communism doesn't work, and good old competitive capitalism is the way of the future. I wonder how many of you reading this in America even stopped to think about the message you're being fed. I wonder how many of you reading this in America have absolutely no clu…
What? So you think this is nothing more than propaganda?
There is just as much propaganda in American media as there is in Chinese Media.
Does Rupert Murdoch support SOPA or is it the fine informed editors at the Wall Street Journal? Rupert wouldn't use his media as a propaganda network for his own benefit would he?
There is no propaganda in American Media, none at all. It's only the evil commies that have propaganda.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His model of human nature and projections for capitalistic growth were also totally off. Correct. The model of human nature proposed by Karl Marx was demonstrably incorrect, and the demonstration continues in the few countries that continue to proclaim allegiance to Marxist thought. An interesting fact about free-enterprise (Marx might say, "capitalist") economies is that they are based in part on the writings of Ada…
They aren't in competition. They both were geniuses. Smith did not advocate laissez-faire capitalism. He was against any kind of cartel, oligopoly, or monopoly, and wanted the state to be more powerful than corporations, not controlled by corporations. Marx was right about capitalism but wrong about incentives. Both of them should be drawn from in the creation of a next generation economic system.
I'm getting down voted to oblivion for this... Even in the year 2012, after all these years, Americans still need to hear stories that directly outline why communism doesn't work, and good old competitive capitalism is the way of the future. I wonder how many of you reading this in America even stopped to think about the message you're being fed. I wonder how many of you reading this in America have absolutely no clu…
Are we really being fed a message in this article?
Perhaps. The message I got from this article? Straight communism doesn't work. (Which is fairly well established from past "communist" governments – they're either not communist or they quickly transmute into some other form of government.) But this article also doesn't espouse the benefits of pure capitalism. Instead, it highlights how a mix of communism and capitalism – a mix of group and personal interests – was actually quite successful.
Individuals have incentives to help the group, because after helping the group they help themselves. That's definitely not pure capitalism. Nor is it pure communism. It's something much more rich and powerful.
I think that's something from which we all could derive a very powerful message: absolute black/white polarizations are rarely correct or beneficial. Instead what's often required is a blending of opinions and ideas.