Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

DDR design

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1019
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2004, 21:30
Party Member
Post 08 Jan 2005, 09:02
GTctygeht wrote:
Turhapuro wrote:
You must be kidding. Those cameras have nothin unique, they are dull mass products. It would be whole different thing if they were made of wood by expert carpenter.

Then each would take longer to make, and fewer would be available to the public.

Not really. If you design then to look nice and know what you are doing, their production is not any harder, especially if they are made of plastic parts. Sure you have first to design them to look nice so you need some kind of artistic eye (not everyone has it).

And minimal, reduced design can look very nice, but these sure are not that kind of design. Look at those colors, they are ugly.

I know how designing electrical consumer product goes and how you take account good looks and manufacturibility both, because it is part of my work.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1702
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Oct 2004, 21:15
Party Member
Post 08 Jan 2005, 18:31
That's light years away from what you originally suggested, which was a handmade wood-carved camera.

Yes, the color isn't the most appealing, but it's a camera, not a fashion accessory. The design of electrical consumer products in a capitalist economy, which is apparently what you're familiar with, is more about making something that works passably well but looks "better" than the competitor.
Since there aren't supposed to be competitors in a socialist/communist economy, function is more important than form. Nobody's trying to trick the consumer with subconscious appeals to some part of the brain that will make them think happy thoughts about the product in question.
"Shake your chains to earth, like dew / Which in sleep had fall'n on you: / YE ARE MANY-THEY ARE FEW." - Percy Bysshe Shelley, 'The Masque of Anarchy'
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1019
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2004, 21:30
Party Member
Post 10 Jan 2005, 10:39
GTctygeht wrote:
That's light years away from what you originally suggested, which was a handmade wood-carved camera.

Umm, it wasn't my suggestion, I jusr replied that those are not craftsmanship (like wooden made cameras would be).

Quote:
The design of electrical consumer products in a capitalist economy, which is apparently what you're familiar with, is more about making something that works passably well but looks "better" than the competitor.

I must disagree with this. First, consumer products what we do, works better and looks better than competitioners products, for at least sometime (before they get new versions out). That is the whole point of competition. Ofcourse some firms compete mainly with price, but then there is all those expensive brands with quality (Sony, Pioneer etc.)

Quote:
Since there aren't supposed to be competitors in a socialist/communist economy, function is more important than form.

I must disagree with this too. Look at that WC-paper. It is rough, tough and takes no shit (just like Clint Eastwood). Where is the suberb functionality? No competition, no pressure, no good looks nor functionality.

Communist quoality is inferior compared to capitalist. We made lots of trade with USSR so we could see how good/bad their stuff was and we had this old joke about USSR "quolatity".

"What does not fit to ass and does not buzz?"
"??"
"Russian assbuzzer"

(probably very lousy joke because you don't understand it and I just translated it from finnish).
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1702
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Oct 2004, 21:15
Party Member
Post 11 Jan 2005, 01:02
Turhapuro wrote:
I must disagree with this. First, consumer products what we do, works better and looks better than competitioners products, for at least sometime (before they get new versions out).

Your goal is to convey to the buyer that yours is the better product, whether it is or not.

Quote:
I must disagree with this too. Look at that WC-paper. It is rough, tough and takes no shit (just like Clint Eastwood). Where is the suberb functionality? No competition, no pressure, no good looks nor functionality.

I didn't say superb functionality, just functionality. Again, it's "communist sense"
. Make something that everyone can have and use, then make something better when conditions are appropriate.

And yeah, I get the gist of the joke.
"Shake your chains to earth, like dew / Which in sleep had fall'n on you: / YE ARE MANY-THEY ARE FEW." - Percy Bysshe Shelley, 'The Masque of Anarchy'
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4464
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 11 Jan 2005, 02:52
Man Turhapuro, that assbuzzer joke was hilarious. I was laughing for like 5 minutes! Sadly, Turhapuro has a point. However, I do have a few things to say about capitalist economics:

1. Most consumer goods of western countries today are made by slave like people in Asia. Although there is high productivity, allowing for cheaper goods and fatter paycheques for western employees, especially management, the results are not so good for the people being exploited, who work in cramped, stuffy, often hazardous conditions so we can get the latest and greatest gadgets.

2. Ideally, there is much less waste in a socialist society. Go to a store (if you live in the west). Everything is always in stock. The only way to do this is to create much more than people would ever need. Although we had problems in the USSR with waiting for goods, they were never as bad as people here think they are, that is until the late 1980s. In the west, there are hundreds of millions (dare I say billions) of products that don't get purchased, that never get sold. What happens? Guess...

3. Many capitalist goods today are designed to last for a limited amount of time. Whether it be lightbulbs, electronics, or automobiles, things (as the old saying goes) "just aren't built the same way they used to be". Although this means greater sales, it also, once again, means more waste. Immense amounts of garbage, the pollution created to make those products; these elements must be considered when making judgements.

4. Many goods must be kept at a certain price. Supply and demand are simple concepts with more complex implications. A basic law of economics states that the rate supplied (at a fixed price) is the equilibrium, where all buyers ready to buy and all sellers willing to sell meet. Simply put, "everyone with a sufficient willingness to pay gets the product and is happy". Realistically, only those with enough money get the product, and often those who need/want the product most don't get it.

5. Competition itself also generates much waste. All the flyers, advertising, and quick outdating of products results in waste. I see more advertising in Canada from corporations on tv, in newspapers, on the and street, not to mention the internet, than I did Soviet propaganda in the USSR. Further, some products, particularly electronics, can be old before they hit the shelves. I bought a laptop recently for $1700. Now, I couldn't sell a new one of the same model for $1200. I got it 3 months ago! Now, I'm not one to spend much on electronics (I don't have a lot of money), but, as many fellow Canadians do have the money, it means that every 2 years or so they'll be throwing away their old computers and getting new ones. That is not efficient. That is terrible terrible waste.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4464
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 11 Jan 2005, 02:56
Oh, and by the way guys, it was the 1980s. Remember that in the west too you had some pretty shabby looking products. And as for the cameras, they were probably a failed attempt at being cool looking. They definitely look 1980s to me, and I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't just copies of some West German camera of the same look.

Oh, and one more thing: that toilet paper looks a lot like the one we have here at my residence, and trust me, I may not be taken away to a magical garden every time I wipe my butt, but it gets the job done
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1019
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2004, 21:30
Party Member
Post 11 Jan 2005, 10:41
GTctygeht wrote:
Turhapuro wrote:
I must disagree with this. First, consumer products what we do, works better and looks better than competitioners products, for at least sometime (before they get new versions out).

Your goal is to convey to the buyer that yours is the better product, whether it is or not.
Quote:
So? Competition takes care that we want to make as good products as possible. Because we live in west and not in China, we try to competite with quality because we can't win chinese in price war.

And by the way, do you think that looks is irrelevant? Would you like to live in apartment which has awful colors and ugly wallpaper?

Quote:
Quote:
I must disagree with this too. Look at that WC-paper. It is rough, tough and takes no shit (just like Clint Eastwood). Where is the suberb functionality? No competition, no pressure, no good looks nor functionality.

I didn't say superb functionality, just functionality. Again, it's "communist sense"
. Make something that everyone can have and use, then make something better when conditions are appropriate.

Empty words. Toalet paper is not thing that you just cannot produce even if you want. It is simple bulk product made in big papers mills, just the kind of product where socialist system should be in itse best (no innovations, just simple mass production).
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1019
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2004, 21:30
Party Member
Post 11 Jan 2005, 11:21
soviet78 wrote:
1. Most consumer goods of western countries today are made by slave like people in Asia.

This may be valid point, but products were better even when they were made in Europe.

Quote:
2. Ideally, there is much less waste in a socialist society.

I am sure that you know what is reality.

Ideally there is no waste in capitalist society because consumers are willing to pay for clean products (this is daytreaming).

Quote:
In the west, there are hundreds of millions (dare I say billions) of products that don't get purchased, that never get sold. What happens? Guess...


Many of them are sold in sales. I don't believe that there is more than 5% going to trashcan because it is expensive to stores to buy stuff from factories and then trash them (foodstuff might be different because they spoil).

Quote:
3. Many capitalist goods today are designed to last for a limited amount of time. Whether it be lightbulbs, electronics, or automobiles, things (as the old saying goes) "just aren't built the same way they used to be".

This is true but only because customers look price more than ever. They are not willing to pay for extra quality. They do not want to spend 100€ for Moccamaster, instead they take that 15 € plastic and cheap nameless coffee-maker.

Quote:
4. Many goods must be kept at a certain price. Supply and demand are simple concepts with more complex implications. A basic law of economics states that the rate supplied (at a fixed price) is the equilibrium, where all buyers ready to buy and all sellers willing to sell meet. Simply put, "everyone with a sufficient willingness to pay gets the product and is happy". Realistically, only those with enough money get the product, and often those who need/want the product most don't get it.

You haven't realized the point of that market equilibrium. That might be true for AIDS-medicine in Africa but it sure is not true in west. Everyone has money (if they don't have, state will give it) to fullfill basic needs. Ordinary people don't buy yachts even if they could because it would constrain their ability to buy other thins (like house).

Quote:
5. Competition itself also generates much waste. All the flyers, advertising, and quick outdating of products results in waste.

Competition makes much more good than harm. Without competition, you would get inferior quality with high price. All that competition does is not good but hey, you just can't get it all.

Quote:
Further, some products, particularly electronics, can be old before they hit the shelves. I bought a laptop recently for $1700. Now, I couldn't sell a new one of the same model for $1200. I got it 3 months ago!

I think rapid development is not bad at all.

Quote:
Now, I'm not one to spend much on electronics (I don't have a lot of money), but, as many fellow Canadians do have the money, it means that every 2 years or so they'll be throwing away their old computers and getting new ones. That is not efficient. That is terrible terrible waste.

They are doing it because they want, not because they have to. I use 5 years old cellphone and I chance my computer in 5-6 years (if you don't count upgrades). I could afford new computer and cell phone every year.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1702
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Oct 2004, 21:15
Party Member
Post 11 Jan 2005, 21:01
Turhapuro wrote:
So? Competition takes care that we want to make as good products as possible. Because we live in west and not in China, we try to competite with quality because we can't win chinese in price war.

And by the way, do you think that looks is irrelevant? Would you like to live in apartment which has awful colors and ugly wallpaper?

Yes, the Chinese use prison labour on commercial goods, so it's not exactly fair, kind of a gray area on how that kind of production should be run. Still, it's better than subsidized agriculture.

And looks should be irrelevant. If you have the means to make modifications to the things you own, go for it. If not, at least you have them. Competing on looks is empty and does a disservice to the consumer by playing to their psyche, distracting them from the important features of a product (functions).

Quote:
Empty words. Toalet paper is not thing that you just cannot produce even if you want. It is simple bulk product made in big papers mills, just the kind of product where socialist system should be in itse best (no innovations, just simple mass production).

What makes you think that they weren't at their best? We have a period where toilet paper was a luxury. Then we go toward a time where everyone has it. Sounds like an improvement.

Quote:
You haven't realized the point of that market equilibrium. That might be true for AIDS-medicine in Africa but it sure is not true in west. Everyone has money (if they don't have, state will give it) to fullfill basic needs.

That's not a feature of capitalism. That's a feature they've tacked on to make the people grateful for the scraps thrown at their feet.

Quote:
Without competition, you would get inferior quality with high price.

If the monopoly is run by a capitalist, yes. The capitalist company will produce goods that the capitalist doesn't have to buy himself, as he can afford nicer things from foreign markets and such. If the company is run by the workers, they will produce the kind of products they'd like to buy (good quality, fair price).

By the way, we appreciate your effort to start using the quote tags.
"Shake your chains to earth, like dew / Which in sleep had fall'n on you: / YE ARE MANY-THEY ARE FEW." - Percy Bysshe Shelley, 'The Masque of Anarchy'
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1019
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2004, 21:30
Party Member
Post 12 Jan 2005, 10:39
GTctygeht wrote:
And looks should be irrelevant. If you have the means to make modifications to the things you own, go for it. If not, at least you have them. Competing on looks is empty and does a disservice to the consumer by playing to their psyche, distracting them from the important features of a product (functions).

If looks makes consumers happy, why it is irrelevant? Isn't it then just one function of a product?

Quote:
Quote:
Empty words. Toalet paper is not thing that you just cannot produce even if you want. It is simple bulk product made in big papers mills, just the kind of product where socialist system should be in itse best (no innovations, just simple mass production).

What makes you think that they weren't at their best?

If that is true, it just underlines problems in socialist economy. And for producing good quality toalet paper you can buy better papermachine. At 80's there already were technology to produce very high quality tissue paper.

Quote:
We have a period where toilet paper was a luxury. Then we go toward a time where everyone has it. Sounds like an improvement.

But if that happens at 80's, it sounds like backwards country.

Quote:
Quote:
Everyone has money (if they don't have, state will give it) to fullfill basic needs.

That's not a feature of capitalism.

It is feature of government. Capitalism cannot flourish without government and government cannot flourish without capitalism. Socialism cannot flourish at all


Quote:
Quote:
Without competition, you would get inferior quality with high price.

If the company is run by the workers, they will produce the kind of products they'd like to buy (good quality, fair price).

Unfortunately this was not the case in former USSR or DDR.

Let's think workers in automobile factory (just for example). Those who already have a car, do not have incentive to work. Same applies to those who are not going to buy a car and those who are going to buy another model from another factory. Because everyone can slack and just buy another model than their own made, they have no incentive to work efficiently.

I remember that at 80's wc-paper were very rough in public buildings like schools and bureaus because they just wanted to get job done as cheap as possible. In private houses wc-paper was alwas much better. That is because in public buildings the one who decides about budget, does not care what people think about toilets.

Quote:
By the way, we appreciate your effort to start using the quote tags.

I prefer older news tags altough they don't look so nice, but they are easier and better if you are used to them (functionality, functionality!
).
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4464
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 12 Jan 2005, 16:23
Quote:
Many of them are sold in sales. I don't believe that there is more than 5% going to trashcan because it is expensive to stores to buy stuff from factories and then trash them (foodstuff might be different because they spoil).


I will have to disagree there. You and I both know that many products are made so cheaply that the company has no problem disposing of them directly. Further, in the case of foods, sometimes they even destroy it in order to keep prices up (like burying oranges in a good year instead of selling them so prices stay high). That doesn't sound efficient to me. In a socialist economy this would simply mean cheaper prices than already exist. The USSR didn't just bury it's surpluses, they made them more highly available.


Quote:
customers look price more than ever. They are not willing to pay for extra quality. They do not want to spend 100€ for Moccamaster, instead they take that 15 € plastic and cheap nameless coffee-maker.


It doesn't matter if they buy the "Moccamaster" or not, even expensive products are designed to last only for the short term. It's not an issue of people wanting cheaper goods, its an issue of having greater production possibilities than consumption requirements. What ends up happening is the creation of crappier products that last shorter and break easier, forcing the consumer to buy more, and thus keeping producers employed. I see the economics of this, but it is hardly appropriate considering that the immense problems of much of the rest of the world. We are not managing scarce resources approriately, but simply wasting them, and one day, we will pay for it, perhaps with our lives.


Quote:
You haven't realized the point of that market equilibrium. That might be true for AIDS-medicine in Africa but it sure is not true in west. Everyone has money (if they don't have, state will give it) to fullfill basic needs. Ordinary people don't buy yachts even if they could because it would constrain their ability to buy other thins (like house).



But you see the very point of equilibrium is to distribute goods to the people most desiring them (capable of spreading their scarce resources to whatever area they like). Many people have to focus their monies on obligations, instead of luxuries they might like. Others have the money to throw away, often on things they don't even really like, and definitely don't need. In Canada and the United States in particular, I know that this issue of wanting things you can't have has resulted in billions of dollars in debt on the part of ordinary citizens. Some people are now hopelessly in debt, and interest on this debt only makes it worse.


Quote:
Capitalism cannot flourish without government and government cannot flourish without capitalism. Socialism cannot flourish at all


However clever you may think yourself to be, you must acknowledge that socialism morally is a better system. Socialism does not use slave labour to create its wealth. The entire history of capitalism, up to and including modern times, shows the exploitation of some lower class of people so that the few can have more. Most of us on this forum, including yourself it seems, are those few. If you were living in a third world country working for capitalists somewhere overseas I'm sure you would change your opinion.


Quote:
Let's think workers in automobile factory (just for example). Those who already have a car, do not have incentive to work. Same applies to those who are not going to buy a car and those who are going to buy another model from another factory. Because everyone can slack and just buy another model than their own made, they have no incentive to work efficiently.


That does not make much sense to me. People aren't just going to have incentive to work for one good, such as a car, or to slack off if they want to get a different car. They work at the automobile factory so that they can get the pay to get all the other goods they need/want. If they work poorly, their chances of getting things they need/want become lowered.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1019
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2004, 21:30
Party Member
Post 12 Jan 2005, 16:43
soviet78 wrote:
Quote:
Many of them are sold in sales. I don't believe that there is more than 5% going to trashcan because it is expensive to stores to buy stuff from factories and then trash them (foodstuff might be different because they spoil).


I will have to disagree there. You and I both know that many products are made so cheaply that the company has no problem disposing of them directly.

But because price difference between bought and sold product are roughly 30% (as far as I can remember consumer electronics like VCR, TV etc), you will have to sell 3 products for every one discarded. You hardly make any profit if you trash 10% of your products.

Quote:
Further, in the case of foods, sometimes they even destroy it in order to keep prices up (like burying oranges in a good year instead of selling them so prices stay high).

Looks like they can't sell them with profit.

Quote:
In a socialist economy

There would be no overporduction because of inefficiencies. Problem solved


Quote:
Quote:
customers look price more than ever. They are not willing to pay for extra quality. They do not want to spend 100€ for Moccamaster, instead they take that 15 € plastic and cheap nameless coffee-maker.

It doesn't matter if they buy the "Moccamaster" or not, even expensive products are designed to last only for the short term.

Bullshit. We have very old moccamaster at our work and it works fine.

Quote:
Quote:
Capitalism cannot flourish without government and government cannot flourish without capitalism. Socialism cannot flourish at all

However clever you may think yourself to be, you must acknowledge that socialism morally is a better system.

I think that socialism/communism is evil because it aims for violent revolution and wants to fysically exterminate whole class of people.


Quote:
If you were living in a third world country working for capitalists somewhere overseas I'm sure you would change your opinion.

Are you sure that those poor workers would be any happier at streets without job?

Quote:
That does not make much sense to me. People aren't just going to have incentive to work for one good, such as a car, or to slack off if they want to get a different car. They work at the automobile factory so that they can get the pay to get all the other goods they need/want.

Now please explain how the this differs from capitalist car factory?
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3618
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Oct 2004, 15:15
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 12 Jan 2005, 17:54
Some nice pics I must say, don't you have any of Moccafix Gold and Spreewald pickles though?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4464
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 12 Jan 2005, 20:04
How old is your MoccaMaster? My point is that today products are designed to last for shorter periods of time. I have experience with several dozen products (some of them major electronics) that have failed due to crappy design and construction, including a 2 year old television. Our old television (15 years now and still working) is a direct example of excellent (purposefully) workmanship in the past that just doesn't exist today. This is even true with automobiles. A very close friend of mine is a mechanic, and he tells me that cars today break down much more quickly than those of the past. He says he gets equal work from 2-5 year old cars as he does from 5-10 year old cars. Various components, up to and including engines and other expensive-to-replace items, are becoming more and more common repair jobs on cars made in this century! This cannot just be a coincidence, in my eyes.

As for our discussion of waste in department stores: You must sell 3 for every one discarded? That's still a lot of waste. A fundamental principle of economics is that resources are scarce (and must be distributed accordingly). Some companies just don't realize this I guess, because they are wasting a whole lot more than is sustainable.


Quote:
Looks like they can't sell [oranges] with profit.


That's the problem exactly! Wasting food just because they can't get enough money! They'll still make money, just not at the amounts that they want to because of the overflow of goods in the economy causing them to lessen in price. So their solution is to throw them away, when millions of people are starving or underfed, sometimes within their own country? Ok, that sounds sensible.


Communism isn't necessarily violent, and it doesn't necessarily advocate the extermination of 'a whole class of people'. It depends on the country, the history and nature of the people and of their relationships with landlords and rich people. If people are brutilized and bullied all their lives and forced to work as slaves (litterally in many cases) of course they are going to retaliate harshly against their masters. In some cases, the government doesn't even support these actions. Lack of common sense and civility (caused by the lack of education that the slaveowners impose on the people) are often the very source of this brutality.


Quote:
Are you sure that those poor workers would be happier at streets without job?


I am quite positive that they would be happier if their government (most often run by stooges of American and corporate interests, could provide for them instead of knealing before the IMF and World Bank's demands. I'm not sure if you know the policy of these two institutions but it is basically to "create an atmosphere in which American and corporate interests could be preserved and furthered", often times by saying that certain social programs have to be destroyed before the IMF is willing to give you a loan. Furthermore, loans have very high interest rates which end up making the country poor and dependent and vulurnable to the IMF and it's prorogative.


The car factory question is quite obsurd, because it is not just about cars, it is about the distribution of the wages after the production of whatever products those individuals have to make. In capitalist societies, management takes much more of a share than it deserves (there's no way that a guy making 300-500 times the amount his employee is actually deserves that much more). In socialism (or my idealic version of it, people get paid, roughly accordingly to the amount that they actually deserve.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1019
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2004, 21:30
Party Member
Post 12 Jan 2005, 22:06
soviet78 wrote:
My point is that today products are designed to last for shorter periods of time.

That is because customers are not ready to pay for extra quality.

Quote:
Quote:
Looks like they can't sell [oranges] with profit.


That's the problem exactly! Wasting food just because they can't get enough money!

Would you work for free?

Quote:
Communism isn't necessarily violent

As far as I know, Marx says that revolution is necessary.

Quote:
If people are brutilized and bullied all their lives and forced to work as slaves (litterally in many cases) of course they are going to retaliate harshly against their masters.

This is way too easy explanation. Terror is a way of warfare for communists. Systematic terror utilized in Russian revolution is not angry retaliation, it is cold blooded way to suppress resistance. Same applies to Finnish revolution, altough it failed (white army won).

Quote:
In some cases, the government doesn't even support these actions. Lack of common sense and civility (caused by the lack of education that the slaveowners impose on the people) are often the very source of this brutality.

Brutality usually is outcome of communist agitation. People just dont one day get angry and start revolution, muster red army and move to kill all burgeoise.

Quote:
Quote:
Are you sure that those poor workers would be happier at streets without job?

I am quite positive that they would be happier if their government (most often run by stooges of American and corporate interests, could provide for them instead of knealing before the IMF and World Bank's demands.

Like China and Vietnam?

Let's think about if we order some stuff from say, India. How we exploit indian workers if we phone there, ask for their price and then buy stuff at price they offer? We could bought it from my neighbour but instead we bought it from India. Now few indian workers have more work than yesterday.

Quote:
often times by saying that certain social programs have to be destroyed before the IMF is willing to give you a loan.

Don't take loan and go for juche.


Quote:
The car factory question is quite obsurd

No it is not. I just cannot realize why car makers in socialism would work any harder than in capitalism if they both work just for pay?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4464
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 13 Jan 2005, 01:54
Turhapuro, I do believe that customers are ready to pay for extra quality, but that they can't because corporations (because of immense growth in their power) can sell much more than people need (at least the people in their market, whatever it happens to be). The result is that they produce products that they know will have a short lifetime, so that they can sell more to the consumer over a shorter period of time. If people had to purchase say a television only once every 20 years, a company could squeeze very little money. If they made one that broke after 5 years, more people would be buying televisions (it's called planned obselesence, and I've learned that scientists are even creating a type of grain that can only generate crops for one season, so that farmers have to continue to buy it from someone).

The issue of the cheap oranges is not about working for free, it is about working for a slightly smaller paycheque. Government subsidies could ease these problems. Further, there are plenty of countries, just south of one border for example, that would be happy to consume the excess. Thinking about life in an economic way is quite the way of the capitalist, and if life is more expensive than the profits to be made from it, there is no point in preserving it. Three times as many people die every month from various curable or easily preventable diseases all over the third world as did die in the tsunami disaster. Why is there so much help for the tsunami victims but not for various people with diseases and illnesses that western countries have had cures for for decades? Because it's not economically viable. It costs more than the profit that can be generated from giving people the medicine. Congratulations: we have become a generation of rich western individuals who no longer care (or even know) about the terrible lives that we are causing or failing to prevent (at little cost to us). Simple moral philosophy tells us that if we are standing on a bridge, while someone is yelling for help and sounds to be drowning downstream, we have a moral obligation (if it doesn't cause significant harm to ourselves), to help them... I guess we have triumphed over morality.

You cannot understand the intricacies and complexities of the Russian revolution unless you know the history of repression under Czarist Russian regimes, and the mass poverty that people endured for various imperialist ambitions. The terror tactic would never work if people were not willing to sign on. Why do you think the communists were ever successful anyway? Do you think that a small minority could overpower a country with the size and population of Russia so easily?

The intricacies of the exploitation of various third world peoples around the world is not a simple issue, and it is tied to US domination of the IMF and World Bank (and its great influence in the WTO). When you talk about Indians willingly doing business with you, you don't understand that their government, following IMF and World Bank imposed regulations, has decided, believing that it would be better for the people, to allow various western corporations to come in and exploit their workers. However, the trick that is played on the workers soon becomes aparant, as most of the products they make, and most of the money they thus bring, leaves the country when those goods do. It's called neocolonialism. And globalization has brought it back from the 19th century.

Conditions often created by the very institutions that were supposed to help countries are enslaving them, forcing them to work for cheap, because if they don't, some other country will, and/or their loans will be repealed.

The idea of loans from the IMF is much like cocaine: You think it will be good, but it hurts you, makes you dependent, and when you can't pay back you are at the dealer's mercy. The best countries to exploit are the weakest ones, and the IMF, in it's desire to promote corporate interests, is there to ensure that many of those poor countries remain weak. When you privatize everything, when you take power away from the government, the vaccum is filled by foreign corporations, and they become the ones who decide how much to hire, how many products to make, etc. The key difference between government and corporations, however, is that corporations don't care about people, or the country, etc. They care only about money, and about squeezing as much money out of the country as is possible.

Finally, with your car question issue: I didn't really understand what you were asking, but now I think I do. It is true, if both groups (in capitalism and socialism) work for the same money then it is true, both will work equally hard. The only main difference, and it is a big one, is that in capitalism someone else (not the workers or the society) will benefit from their work. In socialism, all of society, including the workers themselves, benefit from the production of the cars. Certainly workers benefit in capitalism, but because there is a portion of that money going into someone's pocket, they don't get as much as they could.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1019
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2004, 21:30
Party Member
Post 14 Jan 2005, 10:02
soviet78 wrote:
Turhapuro, I do believe that customers are ready to pay for extra quality, but that they can't because corporations (because of immense growth in their power) can sell much more than people need (at least the people in their market, whatever it happens to be).

That makes no sense. If one corporation would do better quality and would get better price from it, it would take over the markets. Do you really think that companies would never do tht because "they could sell more"? How they could sell more if someone who produces top quality takes over markets?

Quote:
I've learned that scientists are even creating a type of grain that can only generate crops for one season, so that farmers have to continue to buy it from someone).

As far as I know, those were genetically engineered crops so you really don't want them to multiply on their own.


Quote:
The issue of the cheap oranges is not about working for free, it is about working for a slightly smaller paycheque. Government subsidies could ease these problems.

Just like EU agriculture? But as far as I can remember, it was unfair too.

Quote:
Because it's not economically viable.

Because people don't want to give their money to unknown people. If they would, every nation would give more money to development aid and ordinary peole would give more to charity.

Quote:
The terror tactic would never work if people were not willing to sign on.

Ofcourse you always need troops to terrorize people.

Quote:
Why do you think the communists were ever successful anyway? Do you think that a small minority could overpower a country with the size and population of Russia so easily?

Do you mean that if you are popular, terror is ok? Are nazies are ok too, they were popular?


Quote:
However, the trick that is played on the workers soon becomes aparant, as most of the products they make, and most of the money they thus bring, leaves the country when those goods do.

And it would be better that no money would come in or go out? No jobs but at least no capitalist would get any profits.

Quote:
forcing them to work for cheap

Do you really think that 1 300 million chinese can have job with good western salary?

Quote:
The idea of loans from the IMF is much like cocaine: You think it will be good, but it hurts you, makes you dependent, and when you can't pay back you are at the dealer's mercy.

IMF is lender of the last resort. You go to IMF only when shit hits the fan and you already are in very big trouble.

Quote:
socialism, all of society, including the workers themselves, benefit from the production of the cars.

But theu benefit so slight that it does not matter. If you are one of 100 million workers, your part will be 0,00001% of your work.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4464
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 14 Jan 2005, 16:57
The idea of selling more on a market scale has been the invention of the last 20 years, and has come about from cheaper production and the necessity to make goods that are crappier in quality in order to increase sales over time. The corporate "alliance", as you might say, is part of the Nash equilibrium, and can also be described as the prisoners' dilemma, in basic economics, where the ultimate best interest for the individual is the same as it is for the group (of companies in this case). The creation of far superior products would ultimately only make sense in the short term. Since they are more expensive to build, if multiple companies got a hold of the technology used to make them better (which they do over the long term, the act of building superior products would only result in making the goods cheaper on the market (better quality equals higher demand equals higher price, higher price equals more suppliers equals lower price). There is no reason for such major innovation as all it does is lowers the price and increases costs.

The genetically engineered crops is just a point: that corporations are now trying to "own" life itself.

The discussion of the Russian Revolution is going in circles. Let me just say, that, whatever problems occurred during that time were not for no reason. The country, under the direction of socialism, played the main role in the defeat of Nazi Germany, and provided (for a time) a better life for it's people than Czarist Russia ever did.

Finally, our discussion of cheap labour markets is also circular. My point is that a good government without the restrictions or entrapments of the IMF could do much better for the people than some corporations. Just look at 1980s Nicaragua, look at Cuba in comparison to other Carribean countries, at Vietnam compared to the neighbouring countries like Thailand, and look also at what Venezuela is doing to try to put oil resources into the hands of the people of the country, instead of some foreign owned or dominated local business entities. You will see that a strong stable government is better for everyone, including ethical business should they choose to one day enter the country. All I'm saying that if you want self-reliance or corporate domination, unless you want to serve a small minority, I say choose self-reliance.

Quote:
Do you really think that 1 300 million chinese can have job with good western salary?


The question could alternatively be: Do you think western salary is fair in comparison to how much Chinese work?

Quote:
IMF is lender of the last resort. You go to IMF only when shit hits the fan and you already are in very big trouble.


So the bank that's supposed to help you get on your feet is the one that screws you even more and allows mass exploitation of your people? Sounds ethical to me.

Quote:
But theu benefit so slight that it does not matter. If you are one of 100 million workers, your part will be 0,00001% of your work


Sometimes I don't understand your logic. So are you saying that in the USSR all of the things that people got (free health care, excellent education, very very cheap housing, various benefits, etc) came from nowhere? The wealth that people generated was placed in a giant pot, and redistributed, fairly equally so that everyone would get a piece of everyone else's labour. That's the basis of society, and is why we form societies in the first place. Your above quote sounds like people work for nothing, and getting .00001% is an extremely unrealistic view on redistribution of wealth. That sounds more to me like the kind of capitalism being imposed on millions of Asians and south Americans today, where they make handbags worth $50 in an American store, and where the workers are given 6 cents to make them.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1019
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2004, 21:30
Party Member
Post 14 Jan 2005, 17:55
soviet78 wrote:
The corporate "alliance", as you might say, is part of the Nash equilibrium

Don't mix Nash with this, you don't need his higher maths here.

Quote:
The creation of far superior products would ultimately only make sense in the short term.

Please tell this to Intel, AMD and NVIDIA. They all compete fiercely with better and better products.

Quote:
Since they are more expensive to build, if multiple companies got a hold of the technology used to make them better

You mix up new pecial tech and means of doing something so they will last for ages. For example you can make many things much durable if you just use more material (increase wall thickness for example) or use better and expensive material (chance material to one which is harder). If you double the thickness of car plates, they will resist corrosion much longer. Unfortunately they will be costlier and heavier.

Quote:
(which they do over the long term, the act of building superior products would only result in making the goods cheaper on the market (better quality equals higher demand equals higher price, higher price equals more suppliers equals lower price). There is no reason for such major innovation as all it does is lowers the price and increases costs.

But you can get excess profits before others can get same tech. Look at new high-tech-branches. If your conclusions are true, why they have developed so rapidly? Why Nokia, Motorola, Samsung etc use loads of money to research new mobile phones if it just does not pay? Why Intel and AMD use billions of dollars to research newer and faster micoprocessors?

The answer is competition. If your products suck, you will lose all customers and go bust. You have to give consumers what they want. If they are willing to pay for new fancy features, but not durability, you manufacture nice and fancy things that does not last so long.

Quote:
Quote:
Do you really think that 1 300 million chinese can have job with good western salary?

The question could alternatively be: Do you think western salary is fair in comparison to how much Chinese work?

Do you have any realistic plans how to correct that or are you just complaining for fun?

Quote:
Quote:
IMF is lender of the last resort. You go to IMF only when shit hits the fan and you already are in very big trouble.

So the bank that's supposed to help you get on your feet is the one that screws you even more and allows mass exploitation of your people? Sounds ethical to me.

I am sure that IMF thinks that it is giving good and ethical advise for its customers.

Quote:
Quote:
But theu benefit so slight that it does not matter. If you are one of 100 million workers, your part will be 0,00001% of your work


Sometimes I don't understand your logic. So are you saying that in the USSR all of the things that people got (free health care, excellent education, very very cheap housing, various benefits, etc) came from nowhere?

I mean that your income is 99,99999% of others work and only small piece of your own. So if you stop working, your standard of living won't go down.

Quote:
The wealth that people generated was placed in a giant pot, and redistributed, fairly equally so that everyone would get a piece of everyone else's labour.
If you would not work at all, wealt generated by your work is not going to pot and you will get 0,000001 less but still you are getting free education, cheap housing, benefits etc.

Quote:
Your above quote sounds like people work for nothing, and getting .00001% is an extremely unrealistic view on redistribution of wealth.

No, you just cannot understand that you would get all you got before, minus 0,000001% because you do not contribute anything to the community.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1702
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Oct 2004, 21:15
Party Member
Post 14 Jan 2005, 23:44
Turhapuro wrote:
But you can get excess profits before others can get same tech. Look at new high-tech-branches. If your conclusions are true, why they have developed so rapidly? Why Nokia, Motorola, Samsung etc use loads of money to research new mobile phones if it just does not pay? Why Intel and AMD use billions of dollars to research newer and faster micoprocessors?

If you've studied economics for any length of time, you should know that microelectronics are an exception to many rules. The key to this is not that the companies are looking to produce newer and faster processors - instead they are looking to produce cheaper processors. The smaller the chip, the cheaper it is to manufacture, and the more transistors and such you can cram onto a microprocessor.

This smaller is better thing doesn't work for most other consumer goods - a 4x4 inch TV might be cheaper to produce, but it hardly makes a viable product. Neither does microtoilet paper, microdeoderant sticks, etc. So outside of microcomputing, your point doesn't stand.

In other industries, making a superior product is simply more expensive and cuts into profits.

Quote:
I mean that your income is 99,99999% of others work and only small piece of your own. So if you stop working, your standard of living won't go down.

You can't fool a centrally-planned economy like that. If you file for unemployment assistance where there are jobs, you're not going to be allowed to become a parasite. From each according to his ability... - if you don't do what you can, you don't eat.
"Shake your chains to earth, like dew / Which in sleep had fall'n on you: / YE ARE MANY-THEY ARE FEW." - Percy Bysshe Shelley, 'The Masque of Anarchy'
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.