[CasX]

But what is more important, raising materialistic living standards, or raising quality of life?
I think they're seperate.

[Gothmog]

But what is more important, raising materialistic living standards, or raising quality of life?
I think they're seperate.

-They are interconnected. An increase in materialistic living standards not always led to improvement in quality of life, but it is difficult to raise quality of life in a environment of economic stagnation. Of course, you always can mention Kerala as an example I´m wrong, but that state is largely a exception to general rule. My point is that we need BOTH high growth levels and improvements in quality of life, which is a much broader definition, and includes care with the environment, healthcare, lower labour hours, and so on. But all these things cost money, and so the society must produce surpluses to spent with these things.

[B. H.]

I still haven't figured out hoe to get my reply completely out of the white box. Check every box later on in the thread that I reply to. Some of my reply will be more likely in it.

------->By starting the NEP, he compromised the revolution from the very start. What he should have done was tell the skilled workers and agronomists that if there was a shortage of food they would be held responsible. They would be the first ones to have their food ration cut off to give to others.

-By starting the NEP, Lenin actually saved the revolution. Did you study the economic situation of USSR in 1921? Civil war and war communism ruined the country There was a hyperinflation, the suppression of market mechanisms led the economy to an absolute chaos. Famine killed 5 million people in 1921-22. If you were in charge, would you have risked to worsen the situation? Want to have another example? Look at China in 1949-56. A gradual approach to nationalization, which included mixed economy companies with former capitalists, worked very well, with good economic growth and overall increase of living standards. So, Mao attempte to push for egaliratian communism in 1957-58. Did you know the results?

<<<<<<<Lenin was an absolute failure and Mao was too. The inflation could have been brought under control and famine could have been prevented. However, to make sure we have studied the same materials send some book titles and webpages that you have studied. The bottom line was that Lenin just wasn't hard assed enough, He should have taken the farmers children away from them and said if they did not produce, they would not see them again. Same thing with the factory managers, medicine makers, ironworks, ect. they would have been given a qouta to fill and would have suffered the most horrid consequences if they did not do so. If they decided they would be haters of the people, their children would be brought up by others who supported the revolution. If that didn't work, the skilled laborers would just be taken out and shot. The hyperinflation could have been brought under control by government edict -price controls.

Mao did not strong arm enough either. Whatever was being done from 1949-1956 could have been done from 1957-1960. It would have been understood that production qoutas would be met and serious consequences would be dished out to those who failed.

The problem is both Mao and Lenin should have fielded a huge worker army---one that worked with guns and rifles by their sides with proper training allowing them to tell whether production levels were being met as well as quality standards. If they weren't, they were to arrest the manager or engineer and take them out and shoot them. In all honesty Lenin, Stalin, and Mao made serious errors and political mistakes.>>>>>>>>>

------>I understand what you are saying. However, the capitalists never let us live down the fact that some were paid more than others. The fact that we compromised in one instance rewarded the boergoisie element in society and made them press for more and more. Better to show them who is boss and get it over with than let their mentality erode your society.

-I think you´re confounding the capitalists with the middle class. Much of the better educated people are middle class and not capitalists. They live on wages too (but on higher wages). On capitalists, a compromise is necessary, since they had knowledge about business, which is valuable for a communist society. It is best tpo take their property and use them as managers or even form mixed economy enterprises with them and latter not allow inheritance of their share in those companies. On restoration of capitalism, I agree with you that there is that risk, but from my point it is more related to lack of people´s control than to former capitalists.


<<<<<I was correct in using the term capitalist. they have never let us live down the fact that we used capitalist methods in the USSR early on. Truth be told, the Soviet people never let themselves live it down either. the capitalists and middles class will be told they will produce, meet their qoutas, and if they do not a citizen of the worker army will put a bullet through their head. Tell them living is an incentive to do the work they are told.>>>>>

----->You still have a problem with "middle class mentality" folks. Junior is going to want to know why he isn't getting paid as much as poppa did when he ran the factory. Junior is going to pout and shit like a baby that he doesn't make as much as his daddy did in real $$$.

-Junior must study or learn another skilled job if he wants to have a middle class living standard. He won´t be allowed more than this. Continued economic growth will help Junior to be less unhappy.If possible, he may realize that he can be ever happier than in the former regime.


<<<<Perhaps so>>>>>

------>Tell the "middle class" types they can do what they are trained for or go out and work in Siberia during the winter months. -OR- they could go shovel cow shit somewhere to fertilize a collective farm.

-For an underdeveloped country with lack of skilled manpower, this is no more than waste and economic irrationality

<<<<No it is not a waste nor is it irrational. I consider pimping other people like the capitalists do to be waste and irrational. If they don't want to go to Siberia, then they can CHOOSE to do what they are told to do. It's that simple. I'd make sure that when they went to Siberia they would be practically begging to come back and do what they were doing before. I'm sorry, but ruthlessness is neccesary.>>>>>

I'm sorry and I do not mean to be hateful or cruel, its just that I do not believe in pampering the old rich and bourgeosie---they will slit the workers throat unless they are reigned in and reigned in tight. the workers form a dictatorship, not a democracy. They will punish and destroy anyone who stands in their way.

------->I am not being naive. What happened in the past will happen again unless firmer measures are used. Stalin and Lenin honestly meant well and were not the booger bears portrayed by opportunistic academics and capitalist propagandists. However, if they HAD been and gotten it over with early the USSR may still be around today.

-I disagree from you. It was probably impossible to be harsher than Lnin and Stalin were. The collapse of USSR is much more related the lack of democracy, since all the power was with the managerial class and the people din´t have control over them. This allowed that elite to restore capitalism.


<<<<<At the early stage of revolution there will be no democracy. I disagree with you too about Lenin and Stalin being harsh. I believe one can easily be harsher than they were combined. My plan gives the workers control of the managerial class. They serve the workers by helping them prtoduce the goods they need. They refuse to do so, they die.>>>>>>>

I'm sorry, but for about 25% of the population, socialism/communism is going to bring a lower living standard. It will raise the other 75% up and that is good, but the 25% who most likely will lose out will not go under without a fight. They will be a constant fifth column in any socialist society. All they understand is the jackboot and gun-butt in the face.

-Socialism and communism itself don´t rise the living standards of anyone. A grwing economy rises living standards. What socialism does (or is supposed to do) is to share the benefits of economic growth, by keeping unequality at low levels. And by having high rates of growth, it is possible to rise living standards for 95% of people. The other will be a insignificant minority that must work in order to keep at least a middle class living standard After this generation is gone, then the trouble is the managerial elite. The answer here is democracy. This elite must serve the people, not the opposite. You can consider me a revisionist, but I don´t see another way to achieve socialism.

<<<<And just how do you plan to keep the "elite" from ruling over the workers? Workers will not have the time to learn how to be a doctor,lawyer, teacher, or manager on an individual level. There is no way each and every worker can learn the intricacies of running a factory in the most minute detail. By their very nature of their positions do managers rule over workers. The only way to prevent the workers from being pimped by the inequality you propose is to arm them and teach then enough to realize when the factory is producing what it should be and punish managers who refuse to help them reach the qouta goals.>>>

[Gothmog]

<<<<<<<Lenin was an absolute failure and Mao was too. The inflation could have been brought under control and famine could have been prevented. However, to make sure we have studied the same materials send some book titles and webpages that you have studied. The bottom line was that Lenin just wasn't hard assed enough, He should have taken the farmers children away from them and said if they did not produce, they would not see them again. Same thing with the factory managers, medicine makers, ironworks, ect. they would have been given a qouta to fill and would have suffered the most horrid consequences if they did not do so. If they decided they would be haters of the people, their children would be brought up by others who supported the revolution. If that didn't work, the skilled laborers would just be taken out and shot. The hyperinflation could have been brought under control by government edict -price controls.

-Again you are wrongly believing that a economy must be run based solely on coercion, while I believe it´s necessary a combination of coercion and incentives (btw, capitalism works largely based on that combination). People will deliberately sabotage production in order to led the government to collapsed if they are too hardly pressed. Actually it happened in the forced collectivization by 1929-33. Peasants sabotaged production despithe threats of arrest, exile or even death. Some things are simply intolerable to the people. And those who resisted weren´t even skilled workers or technicians but peasants. On hyperinflation being brought under control by government preices control, this is another illusion. If prices are kept on artificially low levels, the result will be a large black market.

On bibliography
-Daniel Aarão Reis Filho-Uma revolução perdida (Lost Revolution)-Brazilian Edition
-Angelo Segrillo-O Declínio da URSS, um estudo das causas (USSR decline, a study of its causes)
-Eric Hobsbawn-Age of Extremes
-Trotsky-Revolution Betrayed

Mao did not strong arm enough either. Whatever was being done from 1949-1956 could have been done from 1957-1960. It would have been understood that production qoutas would be met and serious consequences would be dished out to those who failed.

Did you really know what happen in 1957-60 in China? By no way it was possible to fulfill production quotas, since they was fixed in very high levels. What cause the famine was lack of information (the local CP officials lied because they feared be punished if large production quotas weren´t fulfilled- the unexpected effects of coercion..) and there was bad weather. To make things worse, people were deviated from harvest to home made steel plants....

The problem is both Mao and Lenin should have fielded a huge worker army---one that worked with guns and rifles by their sides with proper training allowing them to tell whether production levels were being met as well as quality standards. If they weren't, they were to arrest the manager or engineer and take them out and shoot them. In all honesty Lenin, Stalin, and Mao made serious errors and political mistakes

-To allow people who had no managerial knowledge to establish production quotas? I think it wouldn´t be a good idea.

<<<<<I was correct in using the term capitalist. they have never let us live down the fact that we used capitalist methods in the USSR early on. Truth be told, the Soviet people never let themselves live it down either. the capitalists and middles class will be told they will produce, meet their qoutas, and if they do not a citizen of the worker army will put a bullet through their head. Tell them living is an incentive to do the work they are told.>>>>>

-The same blind belief on coercion. Tell me, who exactly will establish production quotas and quality standards? And why do you rely just in threats instead of material incentives?

<<<<And just how do you plan to keep the "elite" from ruling over the workers? Workers will not have the time to learn how to be a doctor,lawyer, teacher, or manager on an individual level. There is no way each and every worker can learn the intricacies of running a factory in the most minute detail. By their very nature of their positions do managers rule over workers. The only way to prevent the workers from being pimped by the inequality you propose is to arm them and teach then enough to realize when the factory is producing what it should be and punish managers who refuse to help them reach the qouta goals.>>>

-And how will you control this army of workers with no technical skills and enough power to tell managers what to do? How will a unskilled worker tell, for instance, to an aeronautical engineer how he must develop a new plane? Or to tell a scientis what he must research? And how to avoid corruption in that new class of "armed workers", since they have too much power. I agree wity you that the risk of having capitalism restores is high and that the managerial elites can restore it. But you are also suggesting a managerial elite, but it is just a unskilled one. We shouldn´t search for easy exits to that dilemma. In a transitional society, there is always the risk of capitalism being restored, the only force that can prevent this is people´s control. How to combine socialism with democracy is the challenge we have to face.

[B. H.]

""""Again you are wrongly believing that a economy must be run based solely on coercion, while I believe it´s necessary a combination of coercion and incentives (btw, capitalism works largely based on that combination).""""

BH: I have nothing against incentives. I just believe that incentives should be parred out equally. You cannot have factories without managers nor can you have one without workers. In the end you need one as much as the other.

If you pay a manger more than a worker, the next generation of managers have every reason to be jealous of the first generation of managers. The second generation will want just as much if not more as the first and will see no reason to "progress in a revolutionary fashion."

If they do their jobs and do not try to overthrow the revolution they will be treated really well and respected. They don't get shot unless they want to get shot.

Here is a question for you: If it is fair and just to give people unequal pay under your socialism, why would it not be unfair to pay them equally later on under communism?

""" People will deliberately sabotage production in order to led the government to collapsed if they are too hardly pressed. Actually it happened in the forced collectivization by 1929-33. Peasants sabotaged production despithe threats of arrest, exile or even death. Some things are simply intolerable to the people.""""

Somethings are just intolerable to the Revolution and will have to be dealt with. We can always try reasoning with people and explain to them why it is in their best interests to go along with the system. Short term wise great sacrifice will have to be made with the hope of a better future. If that does not work then we'll have to use my armed worker army to shoot even peasants who are anti-revolutionary.

Here is what I propose: Arm the workers that are loyal with guns, rifles, and tanks, ect. Use what capital that the bourgeosie and capitalist elites left when they fled or turned over to buy large amounts of food that will feed this worker army for three years in the event of famine. Keep this food under lock and key in the event that famine results from anti-revolutionary activity. take away all arms from the former middle class and capitalist groups. Take guns and weapons away from the masses who are not willing to join the new workers army.

If counterrevolutionary forces tear up machines and ruin crops with a result in famine, let those who are unloyal starve. The Worker's Liberation Army will dispense food to those who are loyal to keep them alive. Then when the famine is over they will be left to rebuild.

""" And those who resisted weren´t even skilled workers or technicians but peasants. On hyperinflation being brought under control by government preices control, this is another illusion. If prices are kept on artificially low levels, the result will be a large black market. :::""""

We will have to clamp down on the black market with stiff penalties and sentences. People will have to be told that they will sacrifice for the short term but will have plenty soon. We will have to private quality consumer goods that will satisfy the needs of the people and gradually build up our major industries if needed. Hopefully, we will be able to inherit a society where the factories nad heavy industry is left intact for the most part.

"""On bibliography
-Daniel Aarão Reis Filho-Uma revolução perdida (Lost Revolution)-Brazilian Edition
-Angelo Segrillo-O Declínio da URSS, um estudo das causas (USSR decline, a study of its causes)
-Eric Hobsbawn-Age of Extremes
-Trotsky-Revolution Betrayed """

I will try to find and read the sources you cite.

[B. H.]

"""Did you really know what happen in 1957-60 in China? By no way it was possible to fulfill production quotas, since they was fixed in very high levels. What cause the famine was lack of information (the local CP officials lied because they feared be punished if large production quotas weren´t fulfilled- the unexpected effects of coercion..) and there was bad weather. To make things worse, people were deviated from harvest to home made steel plants.... """""

Yes, I have read about that. What we can do is investigate the situation of a country after a revolution and determine what would be a pragmatic level of argicultural production. Don't make them too high, but don't expect less than what is produced that same year.

The officials in China should not have been punished IF the situation was not their fault. If they reported sabotages and anti-socialist activity as well has punishments inflicted on the criminals causing such they should not be harmed. They should also need to know that in circumstances not their fault it is okay to ask for help and resources.

The steel experiment was by and large a failure.

[B. H.]

Quote:

The problem is both Mao and Lenin should have fielded a huge worker army---one that worked with guns and rifles by their sides with proper training allowing them to tell whether production levels were being met as well as quality standards. If they weren't, they were to arrest the manager or engineer and take them out and shoot them. In all honesty Lenin, Stalin, and Mao made serious errors and political mistakes


-To allow people who had no managerial knowledge to establish production quotas? I think it wouldn´t be a good idea.




---------------------->Sometimes Alfenelon you just don't have very good options. Set production standards for a factory at levels that had been obtained in the past, preferably the last year or two and see if you can increase output at 3-5 percent. the Workers Army members may not be able to direct EVERY aspect of the factory, but they could measure the production qouta for the day as well as basic quality standards. then they could praise or punish as needs be.

[B. H.]

Quote:

<<<<<I was correct in using the term capitalist. they have never let us live down the fact that we used capitalist methods in the USSR early on. Truth be told, the Soviet people never let themselves live it down either. the capitalists and middles class will be told they will produce, meet their qoutas, and if they do not a citizen of the worker army will put a bullet through their head. Tell them living is an incentive to do the work they are told.>>>>>



-The same blind belief on coercion. Tell me, who exactly will establish production quotas and quality standards? And why do you rely just in threats instead of material incentives?

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


Qoutas will be made based on previous years production capacity. Quality standards will be based on those set by experts that designed the products.

I said I do not believe we should rely on coercion alone, but use incentives as well. These could be but not limited to:

--taking home some of the things that a facotry worker makes
--Paid vacations
--Be able to day a day off now and then as a reward for good labor.
--Have ones name put in the newspapers as an honored servant of the people.
--medals
--chances to be trained to do other jobs they are interested in.

[Gothmog]

---------------------->Sometimes Alfenelon you just don't have very good options. Set production standards for a factory at levels that had been obtained in the past, preferably the last year or two and see if you can increase output at 3-5 percent. the Workers Army members may not be able to direct EVERY aspect of the factory, but they could measure the production qouta for the day as well as basic quality standards. then they could praise or punish as needs be.

-And what about the costs of a non productive army threatening and harassing people at the factories? And what about the risks of corruption?

[Gothmog]

--taking home some of the things that a factory worker makes

-1st objection: this amount to monetary incentive
-2nd-If I work in a shipyard, I will be allowed to take a ship to my home?

--Paid vacations

-This is a right, even in capitalist country

--Be able to day a day off now and then as a reward for good labor.

-But then you will harm production by allowing the most productive workers to work less...

--Have ones name put in the newspapers as an honored servant of the people.

-Many people don´t give a damn to it

--medals

-Can´t be eaten....

--chances to be trained to do other jobs they are interested in.

-Should not be a reward, but a right
-Still, the stick seems to be larger than the carrot....

[Gothmog]

The officials in China should not have been punished IF the situation was not their fault. If they reported sabotages and anti-socialist activity as well has punishments inflicted on the criminals causing such they should not be harmed. They should also need to know that in circumstances not their fault it is okay to ask for help and resources.

The steel experiment was by and large a failure.

-There was no significant deliberate sabotage. Actually the people were very enthusiastic. And the only who should be punished was Mao itself who used personal power to impose a policy considered suicidal by his best economic planners (middle class people?)

[B. H.]

I will post my replies when I get home from work.

[B. H.]

I am sorry that I have not been able to respond before now.


Here is my reply:


==============================================

Quote:

--taking home some of the things that a factory worker makes


-1st objection: this amount to monetary incentive

------The factory worker makes thing for all the people, however he will get the firstfruits so to speak since he made it.

-2nd-If I work in a shipyard, I will be allowed to take a ship to my home?

---------Of course he/she won't take a ship home, unless it is a yacht. What I had in mind were things like lawn mowers, couchs, ect.


Quote:

--Paid vacations


-This is a right, even in capitalist country

--------->But it is good. How about adding things like tax supported college/trade school, free health care, train the people to understand how things work and why things are done the way they are, right to press grievances, ect.

Quote:

--Be able to day a day off now and then as a reward for good labor.


-But then you will harm production by allowing the most productive workers to work less...

------------------>I will reward those who work hard and inspire them to want to work harder. The workers will truly feel appreciated for what they do and will make up for any extra time off. It's not like they would ALL take time off at the same time.
Quote:

--Have ones name put in the newspapers as an honored servant of the people.


-Many people don´t give a damn to it


---------------------->Many do.
Quote:

--medals


-Can´t be eaten....

-------------->Give them a cherry pie then.

Quote:

--chances to be trained to do other jobs they are interested in.


-Should not be a reward, but a right

----------------->It is a right. Where I live regardless of how smart you are or how hard you work, you will often find yourself considered for promotions and special trainings soley at the whim of your boss.


-Still, the stick seems to be larger than the carrot....

--------------------->I honestly disagree. I think my carrot would be pretty good. What are your ideas then, besides unequal wages?

[B. H.]

How would I control the new worker army? I WON'T. The Proletariat would. I think it should be made up of a group of loyal revolutionaries, similar to what Lenin had in mind concerning a revolutionary vanguard. While I think he was too lax to use force, he was correct about the vanguard and how to build it up.

[Gothmog]

The factory worker makes thing for all the people, however he will get the firstfruits so to speak since he made it.

-Right, but monetary incentive is better because the worker can buy what he wants, instead of being restricted to goods made by the factory where he works..

Of course he/she won't take a ship home, unless it is a yacht. What I had in mind were things like lawn mowers, couchs, ect.

-I´m just kidding. My point is that this kind of incentive just works in consumer goods factories, the other workers being at significant disadvantage. If you produce computers you take computers to you house, if you produce bananas you take bananas, but if you produce steel, coal or oil.......

But it is good. How about adding things like tax supported college/trade school, free health care, train the people to understand how things work and why things are done the way they are, right to press grievances, ect.

-Free health care also is a right, do you agree. It is supposed to be accessible to all, and not be used as an incentive.
-Btw: Maybe I misunderstood you in one point. Paid vacations are vacations where you continue to receive your wages (which is right in my country for instance) or vacations where your expenses are paid by the state (or enterprise) while you still is receiving your wage?

Many do.

-One or two times, but in the long run it won´t mean too much....
Quote:

Give them a cherry pie then.

-Why don´t to give him more money so he can buy the pie he wants?

honestly disagree. I think my carrot would be pretty good. What are your ideas then, besides unequal wages?

-The stick=fire the lazy workers and the saboteurs (imprison them if they did really wrong things)
-Your ideas for incentives are not bad, but they should be a complement and not a replacement for incentives given in currency.