Quote:
|
Well, in a perfect world, it would work, but giving a government that much control of the economy in the real world is downright dangerous. With economic (and hence political) power so concentrated, the time of the transfer would be a perfect opportunity for a dictator to seize power. Anyone in the government could, for example, pay off the military with the money of the wealthy and set up a dictatorship. I can imagine a seemingly selfless person taking a volunteer position with that aim in mind (I think that is probable, in fact). In terms of radical wealth redistribution, I once supported it. But then someone pointed out that the wealthy would probably leave the country if they thought a socialist (or communist) victory was likely in an election and so take the wind out of the economy's sails. Then, even if wealth redistribution was achieved, there would be far less wealth to distribute. Finally, in the utopian stage, do you really think that collective incentive would be as strong a motivation for prosperity as individual incentive? That is where my theory about the callous and the fear that they spread (see my last post in this thread) comes in. I'm sure you've read all of this before, by the way.
|
You have to remember force that i'd also abolish money. When i say seize assets i mean seize land, tools, good etc. that they own. The wealthy can therefore leave the country at there will. They can take there paper currency, there digital bank accounts with them. They can't take the factories, the fields and the workers with them though.
There is no real transfer of power. I don't think a revolution is necessary. Just running in local council elections. A government to rule over all council's never has to established. But let's say someone does get into there local council with the intent of bribing some mercenaries to seize power. The'd have a number of huge problems.
1) There's just not enough wealth in a constituency of around 70000 people to support a large military force.
2) They have no money to pay off the mercenaries with. They could only promise the military power afterward.
3) Even if they did manage to seize power in there local area they would still be surrounded on all sides by hostile soviets.
4) If they were found to be plotting the'd be removed from there council seat straight away, further enforcing the fact that have to make promises as if they did try to filter any goods they would stand a good chance of being found out.
Also bear in mind that if someone was desperate for power they could just run against the communists.
As far as collective incentive goes i think it easily matches capitalist incentive. Do you think that the average walmart worker cares where you shop? Do you think they try there hardest everyday? or do you think they know there never going to get anywhere and resign themselves to doing a half assed job? there is very little incentive for average workers in capitalist society. The real incentive is there for entrepreneurs and business owners.
In a communist society this is reversed. The workers have allot of incentive as working hard directly affects there local community and them. As labour would be organized at the council, you can also pick your job (to a certain level) so that never end up in a job you truly hate.
There's also the point that in many ways the economy being controlled by the community could strengthen the economy. Jobs like telecommunicator would no longer exist (why do people get payed to irritate and harass people over the phone?), this labour could be put to good use elsewhere in the economy.
Of course some people are just phycotic, but in a communist society what's best for individual is also best for the community.