Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mondragon as the new city-state

elysian.press

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 372 posts

Re: Mondragon as the new city-state

#311

Post by Apocryphon »

WalterBright wrote: post #308
Apocryphon wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Soviet Union was notoriously poor at prioritizing consumer goods, it’s probably one of the reasons for their downfall. One must admit though that both thym and the PRC have achieved something in uplifting backwards feudal empires towards something resembling modernity. I’m not sure that could’ve been achievable counterfactually, and as we saw with the sudden free market capture of post-Soviet Russia in the ‘90s,…

Digital watches of far greater accuracy are available in a blister pack on a peg in the supermarket for $5. When the Red Army invaded Germany, the number 1 looted object was wristwatches. Soldiers would have a row of them affixed to their forearms. In multiple books I've read, they were always looking for wristwatches. My father (B-17 crew) was issued a wristwatch, but I've been unable to find it among his stuff. Tim…

Cheap digital watches lack the aesthetic charm of mechanical, not to mention are dependent upon battery power.

> The USSR was described as 3rd world country with a 1st world military.

And yet, tsarist Russia was even poorer and had worse standards of living. Pointing out that a change in state led to a difference in quality is not a moral judgment, nor does it necessitate an endorsement of that change.

Re: Mondragon as the new city-state

#312

Post by Apocryphon »

WalterBright wrote: post #310
Apocryphon wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Therein lies the commonality between all economic systems: where there are people, there is the taking. Industries tend to require raw materials, which many times are located in or around land.

Free markets are not built around taking. They are built around exchanging.

Ah, the starry-eyed utopianism. Marxists and Objectivists are truly funhouse mirror images; they may look completely different from one another, but both belong at the carnival.

Re: Mondragon as the new city-state

#313

Post by aguaviva »

WalterBright wrote: post #302
aguaviva wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you give an example of country that failed miserable with millions of deaths because of too much free markets. The beauty of capitalism is that it works (or seems to work for some people, for the time being) by externalizing its true costs to other countries, other social strata -- and indeed far into the future. Though mortality rates seem not to have risen (and may in fact declined) in the U.S. during the…

> The beauty of capitalism is that it works (or seems to work for some people, for the time being) by externalizing its true costs to other countries, other social strata -- and indeed far into the future. Are there any sustainable socialist economies by any metric? > European colonial project Colonialism is not free market. > also very much a direct result of "too much free markets" Again, communist countries are th…

Are there any sustainable socialist economies by any metric?

China has hit it out of the park, I think it's quite fair to say. (Could easily name a whole bunch more, but gotta keep this short. It's also a moot subject, per my last item below).

Colonialism is not free market.

That's the thing -- "free market" societies have never really been free, once externalities are accounted for. But the multi-century European colonial project was no mere externality. Its genesis, ideology and economics were inseparable from the development of Western-style capitalism as we know it.

Again, communist countries are the most polluted ones. The reason is straightforward - their economies produced so little, they couldn't afford environmental protection costs.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. But this also gets into a much more important topic we've been leaving out: there's no dichotomy between "socialism" and "capitalism" -- and never was. Nearly every modern, large-scale economy has been a working hybrid of both systems.

Even the good ole' USA.

Re: Mondragon as the new city-state

#314

Post by Apocryphon »

WalterBright wrote: post #303
Apocryphon wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what replaced central planning in those countries, and proved unable to stop the crash?

The various Soviet republics each tried differing approaches. The most free market one was Poland's, and Poland had the most success with it.

That is interesting to hear and would be worth looking into.

Re: Mondragon as the new city-state

#315

Post by eszed »

rglullis wrote: post #293
jszymborski wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "social washing" if it's actually a working co-operative. We all collectively own the funds, and if we ever want to lower yearly rates or pay our members dividends from surpluses, members are free to put it to a vote. Part of the reason we run a surplus is to deal with any unexpected costs (they don't just scale with users, but also the popularity of users on our server), but FWIW I think we should open up a…

What would be the point of "paying dividends from surpluses", if the funds are getting in and out of the same (collective) pockets? And if "everyone" owns the coop, then why do you need to get the surplus in the first place? Seems to be it would be just fine to say "Every month we run a report of the total expenses, and every member pays an equal share".

It's easier (both psychologically and financially) for users to budget for $x per period - with an explicit or implied promise that it won't ever be more than that - and it's easier for the org to plan for y users at $x, than it would be for either to adjust to paying / chasing $z period.

It's a fairly common pricing strategy, which offers stability to both clients and organizations surviving on shoestring budgets and good-will.

Re: Mondragon as the new city-state

#316

Post by WalterBright »

aguaviva wrote: post #313
WalterBright wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The beauty of capitalism is that it works (or seems to work for some people, for the time being) by externalizing its true costs to other countries, other social strata -- and indeed far into the future. Are there any sustainable socialist economies by any metric? > European colonial project Colonialism is not free market. > also very much a direct result of "too much free markets" Again, communist countries are th…

Are there any sustainable socialist economies by any metric? China has hit it out of the park, I think it's quite fair to say. (Could easily name a whole bunch more, but gotta keep this short. It's also a moot subject, per my last item below). Colonialism is not free market. That's the thing -- "free market" societies have never really been free, once externalities are accounted for. But the multi-century European co…

China abandoned communism and turned free markets. That's why they "hit it out of the park".

> "free market" societies have never really been free

Of course. But the free'er they are, the better they work.

> has been a working hybrid of both systems

The socialist part flounders along, supported by taxes on the free market. The bigger the socialist part, the worse the economy as a whole performs.

Re: Mondragon as the new city-state

#317

Post by WalterBright »

Apocryphon wrote: post #306
WalterBright wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand it well enough by reading history books on what happened in them. Have you ventured out of academic theories and read any histories of Marxist attempts? Why should I waste time on a theory that has been proven false every time it was tried? It's up to you to justify it, not me.

I'm not a Marxist so I have no interest in justifying their theories. However, if I made my personal brand all about being what a staunch anti-Marxist I am, I would hazard an effort to try to understand their position, if for nothing else but to understand why so many others have bought into it, and to be a more effective opponent against it.

Marxism is just one of many utopian schemes that do not work. I do not need to study every perpetual motion machine design to dismiss them. It's their job to show that they work.

What amazes me is the people who desperately cling to Marxism despite its 100% failure rate. How can they make a career studying it and never notice its history?

Do you notice that nobody has been able to point to a Marxist success story, after what, 150 years of trying?

BTW, the fundamental flaw of Marxism is it fails to understand basic human nature - that people are selfish. You are selfish, I am selfish, everybody is. Marxism requires rejection of selfishness. This will never work. You cannot cajole it out of people, educate it out, indoctrinate it out, or shoot it out of them. They'll still act selfishly.

Free markets work because it creates a framework where selfishness benefits others.

Re: Mondragon as the new city-state

#318

Post by partomniscient »

kragen wrote: post #206
throwaway48540 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monty Python is well known in Eastern Europe, much more than anarcho syndicalism.

i appreciate the additional information! are they funny in romanian?

I'd imagine the Silly Walks sketch transcends language boundaries.

Re: Mondragon as the new city-state

#319

Post by rglullis »

eszed wrote: post #315
rglullis wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be the point of "paying dividends from surpluses", if the funds are getting in and out of the same (collective) pockets? And if "everyone" owns the coop, then why do you need to get the surplus in the first place? Seems to be it would be just fine to say "Every month we run a report of the total expenses, and every member pays an equal share".

It's easier (both psychologically and financially) for users to budget for $x per period - with an explicit or implied promise that it won't ever be more than that - and it's easier for the org to plan for y users at $x, than it would be for either to adjust to paying / chasing $z period. It's a fairly common pricing strategy, which offers stability to both clients and organizations surviving on shoestring budgets an…

If you want to be protected against unexpected costs, you buy insurance, you don't overpay "just in case".

All I am saying is that the coop (at least cosocial.ca) is not more capital and resource efficient than any good old service provider. We are talking here at a 250% price difference for less functionality. How would you justify that for orgs on a shoestring?

Re: Mondragon as the new city-state

#320

Post by KingMob »

WalterBright wrote: post #259
KingMob wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with a system based on taking is that one runs out of things to take. Pretty damning critique of capitalists there, comrade.

What was America like before capitalists? and after? Where did all that wealth come from, comrade?

Better for the natives and enslaved Africans, that's for sure.
Post reply on HN