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

On being the right size (1928)

marxists.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 150 posts

Re: On being the right size (1928)

#81

Post by vidarh »

dnautics wrote: post #48
breakyerself wrote: post #13

This is really an argument against socialism as the communists tried to implement it. Where the state nationalizes every industry and all workers become employed by the state which plans everything centrally. Most socialists have moved beyond that model and would instead prefer to see a system of enterprise that uses co-op's instead of privately or publicly owned business. Some industries would probably be nationaliz…

"Most socialists have moved beyond that model and would instead prefer to see a system of enterprise that uses co-op's instead of privately or publicly owned business. Some industries would probably be nationalized or socialized..." One of the earliest (and now largely forgotten) criticisms of Marx came from the American philosopher Benjamin Tucker, who facilely forsaw the rise of the communist implementations as an…

State socialism is arguably not Marxist, but Leninist. Many Marxist will also disagree with the term state socialism (many describe those regimes as state capitalist, on the basis that the organisation of capital remains as it does in market capitalist countries - de facto if not de jure concentrated on the hand of a small upper class that is exploiting the working class for profit).

But the criticism above seems to me to even describe "state socialism" in a way that is even largely incompatible with Leninist theory (though not with Stalinist practice).

Re: On being the right size (1928)

#82

Post by chad_oliver »

ljf wrote: post #27
gnarbarian wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One problem with this is people as a group tend to be stupid. What stops the workforce from voting to reduce their work hours to 30 hours per week? Take the Automotive unions as an example. Their demands contributed in many ways to the US auto companies nearly going bankrupt and requiring state bailouts. Moving manufacturing to cheaper places can have a bad local effect in pockets that depend on it, but there is a ne…

I think the point on outsourcing is hinted at I the other story trending highly today about the man living without money. If you had to look a 9 year old child labourer in the eye each time you were buying your cheaply made T-shirt, or a worker how has just completed a 14hour day making component for your phone, would you still feel as happy with your purchase. Yes not all outsourcing is negative and not all worker a…

I would willingly look a 9 year old child laborer in the eye each time I buy a cheaply made T-shirt, and I would feel good about myself.

Consider: most people in developing countries are able to choose which job they will do. It is true that some (far too many) are held in debt bondage, but the vast majority are not. Therefore, if the 9 year old child laborer is working to make cheap T-shirts, they're doing that because it's the best option available to them. If I refuse to purchase these T-shirts on principle, I'm denying them an income. I would much rather deny the income of first-world manufacturers who don't need my money.

Re: On being the right size (1928)

#83

Post by vidarh »

yaakov34 wrote: post #80
breakyerself wrote: post #13

This is really an argument against socialism as the communists tried to implement it. Where the state nationalizes every industry and all workers become employed by the state which plans everything centrally. Most socialists have moved beyond that model and would instead prefer to see a system of enterprise that uses co-op's instead of privately or publicly owned business. Some industries would probably be nationaliz…

You're describing syndicalism; it's not true that it was never implemented by the communists. The Soviet Union had a very serious go at it, allowing the artel as an economic unit (essentially a kind of co-op), and allowing people to freely sell products of their own labor. Within months, this led to a renewed stratification of society, the emergence of a nouveau rich class, and something approaching a return to capit…

It is worth noting that the USSR came into that system for many reasons, but not least because they tried something that Marx had explicitly warned against: Attempting revolution somewhere that was so poor that redistribution would make want for basic necessities universal.

Marx pointed out already in The German Ideology (1845) that this would just cause a return to class struggle, as it creates an immense incentive for people to find ways to accumulate, no matter how much you try to crack down on it.

This was one of many objections to the Bolshevik rush to try to develop socialism, but by the time of the Bolshevik power grab, Lenin had spent 25 years inventing excuses for how Russia could somehow avoid that trap, starting by his fantasy that the Bolshevik would somehow get the support of poor farmers (didn't happen)... Didn't save him from it.

Re: On being the right size (1928)

#84

Post by vidarh »

gnarbarian wrote: post #22
breakyerself wrote: post #13

This is really an argument against socialism as the communists tried to implement it. Where the state nationalizes every industry and all workers become employed by the state which plans everything centrally. Most socialists have moved beyond that model and would instead prefer to see a system of enterprise that uses co-op's instead of privately or publicly owned business. Some industries would probably be nationaliz…

One problem with this is people as a group tend to be stupid. What stops the workforce from voting to reduce their work hours to 30 hours per week? Take the Automotive unions as an example. Their demands contributed in many ways to the US auto companies nearly going bankrupt and requiring state bailouts. Moving manufacturing to cheaper places can have a bad local effect in pockets that depend on it, but there is a ne…

> One problem with this is people as a group tend to be stupid. What stops the workforce from voting to reduce their work hours to 30 hours per week?

What stops them from doing that today?

Re: On being the right size (1928)

#85

Post by jswinghammer »

cynicalkane wrote: post #69
bcoates wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the workers decided these things they would never vote to outsource their own jobs This implies they would be making the wrong decisions then, no? There needs to be some mechanism to decide who does what, or otherwise some goods and services will be produced in proportions well exceeding any possible demand. > The main idea is to make the enterprises benefit those who do the actual work and also make them accoun…

In practice, the trouble of resolving supply and demand problems politically have been far more disastrous than the problem of planning supply and demand. I find the Austrian-influenced critique of communism unconvincing. Many Communist countries chugged right along, growing their economies at a pace that alarmed Western observers, before they sagged and broke down under their increasingly cruel, incompetent, kleptom…

Hayek and Mises were in total alignment on this point: economic calculation under socialism is impossible. Without a working price system economic coordination is impossible to sustain. Those communist countries were not growing at all. If you look at actual output compared to capitalist nations at the same time there is no comparison. The case of East vs. West Germany is sufficient to demonstrate this case.

In fact the problem that subsidies create in society is a little window into the problem of socialism that exists on a larger scale.

Hayek would probably agree with the sentiment that you expressed though.

Re: On being the right size (1928)

#86

Post by gnarbarian »

vidarh wrote: post #84
gnarbarian wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One problem with this is people as a group tend to be stupid. What stops the workforce from voting to reduce their work hours to 30 hours per week? Take the Automotive unions as an example. Their demands contributed in many ways to the US auto companies nearly going bankrupt and requiring state bailouts. Moving manufacturing to cheaper places can have a bad local effect in pockets that depend on it, but there is a ne…

> One problem with this is people as a group tend to be stupid. What stops the workforce from voting to reduce their work hours to 30 hours per week? What stops them from doing that today?

The fact the company can hire someone else.

Re: On being the right size (1928)

#87

Post by vidarh »

bojan wrote: post #46
breakyerself wrote: post #13

This is really an argument against socialism as the communists tried to implement it. Where the state nationalizes every industry and all workers become employed by the state which plans everything centrally. Most socialists have moved beyond that model and would instead prefer to see a system of enterprise that uses co-op's instead of privately or publicly owned business. Some industries would probably be nationaliz…

If the workers decided these things they would never vote to outsource their own jobs and would rarely choose to pollute their own communities. In Communist Yugoslavia we had something like that. There were companies that were managed by their employees, each having one vote. A proposal that would obtain a majority of votes would get to be implemented. But it turned out that people would rather vote to use surpluses…

You will quickly get workers that understand this as long as you allow those companies to fail and force those workers to find work in better managed companies.

Re: On being the right size (1928)

#88

Post by vidarh »

gnarbarian wrote: post #86
vidarh wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One problem with this is people as a group tend to be stupid. What stops the workforce from voting to reduce their work hours to 30 hours per week? What stops them from doing that today?

The fact the company can hire someone else.

That won't help the company if the law has been changed to set a 30 hour maximum, which is my point: Why are you generally not seeing electoral support for 30 hour maximum work weeks?

Re: On being the right size (1928)

#89

Post by jswinghammer »

LekkoscPiwa wrote: post #77
k__ wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what seems logical, but most of the time the second thing will happen, because there are many people who think every job is better than no job. There are lesser jobs than people, so the companies have the bigger lever.

Before there was minimum wage established in the US there was this job of pump attendant. Pump attendant was someone who would pump your gas into your car. These were jobs that paid next to nothing. These jobs disappeared almost immediately after the minimal wage law was enacted. Now, think about it. A 16-year old would come to the gas station after school and pump gas for (let's say) 2usd/hour. But he would also lea…

Amusingly that job still exists in my neighborhood of Boston for reasons that I cannot explain. I suspect there may be a law about it but I'm not certain.

Re: On being the right size (1928)

#90

Post by cynicalkane »

jswinghammer wrote: post #85
cynicalkane wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice, the trouble of resolving supply and demand problems politically have been far more disastrous than the problem of planning supply and demand. I find the Austrian-influenced critique of communism unconvincing. Many Communist countries chugged right along, growing their economies at a pace that alarmed Western observers, before they sagged and broke down under their increasingly cruel, incompetent, kleptom…

Hayek and Mises were in total alignment on this point: economic calculation under socialism is impossible. Without a working price system economic coordination is impossible to sustain. Those communist countries were not growing at all. If you look at actual output compared to capitalist nations at the same time there is no comparison. The case of East vs. West Germany is sufficient to demonstrate this case. In fact…

Hayek literally wrote the book on the "sentiment that I expressed", it's called The Road to Serfdom. Hayek's views on the "economic calculation problem" were more subtle than 'it doesn't work' and they needed to be because by the time he wrote the book, communism was a real economic power and it was getting more powerful. I'm not sure how you think Russia went from backwards feudalism to nuclear superpower by "not growing at all".
Post reply on HN