|
RP Time: OST
Population: XX Nations Technology: Post/Modern
|
![]() Founder: Dom | Prime Minister: Vacant| RP Ministers: Vacant ..:: YOUR NEWS : 16 OCT '14 ::.. ***Things That Happened, Did*** |
![]() |
| Welcome to Caprecian Continents. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Comecon | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 28 2013, 12:29 AM (737 Views) | |
| Nentsia | Nov 28 2013, 12:29 AM Post #1 |
![]()
Politically incorrect history student
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() *Le chubby old Party apparatchik starts talking before the Congress of Oracian left-hearted Comrade-Roleplaying Commissars* This topic is mainly addressed to our Planning roleplayers here, whose nations have planned or either heavily regulated economies. I have sent this idea earlier for review to Falsea - but she hasn't been online I believe for the past few days, so Im now just throwing this out in the community. We have the TA currently, to unite all left-leaning nations in a single military pact, similar to the Warsaw Treaty but then more open and liberal and without a single dominator that has troops on every members' soil. But what we lack is our own Comecon, Council for Mutual Economic Assistance. This was not part of the Warsaw Treaty, hence Cuba, Vietnam and Mongolia could join it with a whole range of other third world regimes acting as observers. Except for Finland. Finland was a rich, western observer. But on the other hand, if the Czechs hadn't staged their coup in 1948, Stalin would've pressed for commie putsch in Finland. Back on topic now: planned economies, certainly the ones that aren't as ridiculously large as China or the USSR, have one tiny little eternal problem. They have no or little access to resources, technology and production capacity to actually maintain a good standard of living for their peoples which they oppress out of love. Importing it from other countries is therefore necessary. The problem is, is that these other countries are usually free market economies. Converting ''communist'' currency to a capitalist one for trading is problematic for money plays a wholly different role in planned economies. (Theoretically, a planned economy is part of the transitional phase. In the end stage, that of true Communism, money has completely lost its purpose and becomes obsolete. In socialist states/planned economies, money is merely a commodity to give people bonusses and rewards, as you only need it to enrich yourself with extra luxury products.) In Capitalist systems, money is of course a direct indication of value for almost everything. So when capitalists and commies want to trade, the problem is that the communist money has a fixed value while its value in the capitalist world is almost certainly much, much, much lower. Anyway, this makes it hard for our planned economies to just go around and import the stuff that we need, for our moneyz have barely any value in other countries. Add to that political barriers. So dem Soviets had a solution: they set up a trading zone, not based on the capitalist principles of production and demand (this breeds competition and eventually imperialism!), but on the socialist principles of ''each according to his need'', international solidarity and mutual assistance. All planned economies join an organization to exchange goods and resources, technology and knowledge to support each others economy. This way, all the planned economies join their efforts for some kind of international allocation of products and resources to answer the needs of all the members. This will strengthen our economies, and before we know it, capitalism lies in the dustbin of history where it belongs! Remember comrades, history is on our side! So what do you think of setting up an Oracian ''Comecon''? (we don't have to name it Comecon, but I like the 'Assistance' part because it places an emphasis on how our trade is founded on wholly different principles heheheehehe) |
![]() |
|
| Hadash | Nov 28 2013, 01:25 AM Post #2 |
![]()
World Power
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The Trilateral Alliance is also an economic alliance:
But you can always have a special agreement between planned economies (which are hardly more than the half of the members of the Trilateral Alliance, I believe), of course. |
![]() |
|
| Nentsia | Nov 28 2013, 01:40 AM Post #3 |
![]()
Politically incorrect history student
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yeah that is one of the reasons why im posting this. There are many members nowadays in the TA that don't have planned economies, and the economic role of the TA is minimal. It has some beneficial trade agreements of course, but its not actively involved with the systematic allocation of goods to fulfill the needs of the member states. |
![]() |
|
| Falsea | Nov 28 2013, 10:39 PM Post #4 |
|
Comrade-Chairwoman of the World Revolution
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() *Puts on her Mao suit then rushes into the conference room, applausing* Oh god, I'm sorry for my lateness. Nents, I replied to your PM before seeing this so excuse any misgivings there. Now to reiterate what I said there; I'm all for this idea as I personally believe the TA fulfills the economic needs of socialist and left-wing states in a very stale and inefficient manner, and only has token efforts in that area. In my view, there's no "socialist economic bloc" yet despite the TA at heart serving as a united front of nations that share that economic model. We can establish one. I also believe in the essence of your speech and sadly what was said is true. IC-wise, Falsea is a prime example of a planned economy without the resources or technology to afford its citizenry a high standard of living and it makes me sick to my stomach that it has to rely on FTAs with a ton of countries, mostly capitalist states. I look forward to what we can come up here as frankly, Falsea wouldn't be too keen on joining the Oracian WTO or WTFO whatever you call it as I see it now. Edited by Falsea, Nov 29 2013, 12:34 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Nentsia | Nov 29 2013, 01:42 AM Post #5 |
![]()
Politically incorrect history student
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() No worries Fal :3 *Congress applausing* We could operate this similar to the TA. Like the TA has an inventory list of what every member state contributes militarily, we could make a list of all member states and their economic contributions. This would not be in terms of money - that is for capitalists and bankers - but in terms of goods, resources, products, technology etc. And we could set up an inventory of what every member state is lacking. So basically a member list containing ''shortages'' and ''surplusses''. But this is still no guarantee that each member-state receives according to its needs, so I'd propose to go one step further. We set up an international ''Gosplan'', or an international commission for economic planning. This commission, consisting of deputies from the various member states, would investigate what the economic bloc as a whole is lacking, and assigns production tasks the countries that are most suitable to produce such goods in large quantities to meet the needs of all other states. This goes at the expense of the production of other products in this particular country - but that is being compensated for by the other member-states who will also produce extra large quantities. Im talking of a model that basically elevates the allocation of goods and economic planning to a higher, supranational level in which Country A is primarily producing grain and other crops, Country B machine parts, Country C clothes and luxury products etc etc. We don't have to organize the production that extreme, but we could work with a rough agenda that encourages member states to 'specialize' in certain products that fulfil the needs of the International Proletariat. This bloc/comecon could also function as an economic organization towards the outer, bourgeois world. We could make an entirely new currency for example, that doesn't replace our existing currencies, but one that is entirely used for trade with non-members. This is still a rough idea though, not sure if I even like, im just brainstorm mode now. But we could set up a separate trade currency, lets call it 'Marx', that is printed in very limited quantities (contrary to the currencies in our own states) and exclusively used to buy/import goods from the capitalist world. It should make it easier for the Marx isn't as worthless and cheap as our other currencies. And to give the Marx any value to the capitalists, the capitalists can only buy our cheaply-made products that are built-to-last-forever quality with the Marx. (this would probably have as consequence that we must set up a ''Comecon Bank'', although I think we have to set one up anyway - even without having a Comecon trade currency. And finally, we could make this part of the economic section of the TA, but I prefer to make it a separate organization. This is because I believe not all TA members would want to submit their economies automatically to this, and not all states who'd want to join this Comecon would want to be part of the military organization. And I think its better to have organizations focus on one thing, the TA focussing on military and international affairs (and on the spread of world revolution!), and this organization with an internal focus on economic management. ![]() (The future of the Socialist part of Oracia with the Comecon!) Edited by Nentsia, Nov 29 2013, 02:08 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Falsea | Nov 29 2013, 03:19 AM Post #6 |
|
Comrade-Chairwoman of the World Revolution
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() *more light applause from Communist-Socialist-People's Party of Oracia cadres, before silence*
I believe this is feasible and can make for an efficient foundation of this organization. Listing the pros and cons of the member economies would be a good first step for closer economic relations between those who want to join and provides for an economic framework of cooperation not based on, as you have said and I believe is true, capitalist elements but rather on socialist principles.
This however, might be a bit troublesome and can scare away prospective members that are nevertheless left-leaning but do not have planned economies. The advantage I see here is that this Gosplan (or in Falsea, the National Economic Planning Commission) can help patch up holes in the economic situation of both the socialist bloc as a whole and individual nations within it, therefore allowing for a clear and comprehensive view on what decisions should be made in the future. The bad side though is the extent of this power. I think assigning production tasks would be too large an infringement on national sovereignty and nobody really wants that except for countries that are desperately poor. ...in addition, I personally don't like the notion of one country specializing in a certain product and being the provider of that product to the other countries part of the Comecon, because while it makes us collectively strong, individually we'll be easy to break economically and we'd gamble too much by placing the fate of our national economies into this organization. And as you said, not every member of the TA will be a member of this Comecon if it will come to fruition, which makes the situation more dangerous. While I like it and I considered the concept of total integration of Falsea into this economy, I believe others won't, and if we want to succeed in doing this, we'd best seek other alternatives. What if, these economic plans become recommendations instead and become nonbinding for signatories?
A semi-monetary union? not a bad idea since it doesn't abolish our national currencies. I like this idea as well and I believe that this new currency, this Marx, will be of higher value or might even be equal to capitalist currencies if we get sufficient weight in membership in this Comecion. It will therefore be useful and can be used to buy goods from the outside when necessary, such as a low surplus in a specific signatory. A Comecon bank would also be useful in mediating this outside trade. I'm contemplating what if we upgrade this to a common trade policy as well, but I have reservations similar to the previous one regarding the Gosplan; national sovereignty might be an issue. Also; I agree that this indeed should be separate from the Trilateral Alliance. |
![]() |
|
| Carpathian | Nov 29 2013, 11:21 PM Post #7 |
![]()
A Collective Regime Of Peace And Love
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Unlike other members, I think that this initiative would carry more weight as an integral part of the TA. What we should do, is make it a voluntary treaty within the TA itself. Also, I believe that a system of incentives is the best solution in this case (perhaps the Carpathian model of semi-nationalization deserves a bit of study here). I bring up the Carpathian model, because it is an example of a planned economy, without necessarily specializing itself on a single field. On a TA/COMECON wide level, this model would work through organizing and promoting multinational cooperatives (this can be done easily if we establish a free travel zone), which are co-financed and co-owned by their respective states. This system also abolishes a huge amount of bureaucracy, as it removes the need for the taxation of individual business ventures (since the state effectively becomes a shareholder, with 50% of the shares of each company, income comes from revenue, instead of taxes). Economic planning in this case, is done through controlling the amount of economic incentive which is given to a particular field. Also, through this system, instead of having huge monopolies, administrated by a single person (which kill competitiveness and thus, innovation as well and also go against the Communist values of equality, as you have bosses which control businesses that are too big for a single person), it also allows the individual members of the cooperative, decide how to run their business. In Carpathia, for example, you have large national oversight groups (like how Chrome Industries is Carpathia's industrial giant), which to an unknowing outsider, may look like a megacorporation, but are, instead, large conglomerates of individual collectives (which are also independent from eachother), that also compete against one another, to develop the highest quality product, which then becomes the conglomerate's flagship product. This is, essentially, a best of both worlds scenario (or, coming as close to one as you'll ever get), where the state runs a planned economy, which nevertheless, allows a certain degree of freedom, as well. Extending this system of collectives on an international level, where you have individual members adjusting the incentives to fit their own needs, while also allowing the conglomerates to cooperate with eachother on an international level, would bring forth a huge amount of economic progress. |
![]() |
|
| Nentsia | Nov 30 2013, 09:46 AM Post #8 |
![]()
Politically incorrect history student
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@ Fals I agree that if we make the economic role of the Comecon too big, it would scare off other nations and it would make the Comecon perhaps too powerful in terms of sovereignty. Perhaps indeed the best solution would be to make our Comecon-Gosplan an advisory body - perhaps even giving away rewards to nations that follow up their advice because they make such a splendid contribution to the overall well-being of the socialist world! I personally would like to see a common trade policy combined with a more valuable trade currency, the Marx, but I do see your point that this would go at the expense of member-states' sovereignty to regulate their own trade. On the other hand, it would make us instantly one of the biggest players in international trade for we'd be many countries acting as a unified state. Then we can truly hang the capitalists with the rope they sell us! @Carpathia Yeah we could make it a voluntary part, like the monetary union exists within the EU as a whole, but then we'd have to work out how separate its going to be from the rest of the TA. Tbh Im not to sure about the Carpathian model IC'ly, as I know for sure my own nation (Myeongju) wouldn't want it. I don't really see the benefit of privatizing half of each state enterprise. If its for allowing competition, then I'd say competition is exactly what the Comecon is trying to eradicate. If you want more privatization to allow for more incentives, then I'd like to point out that Myeongjan managers and workers are given bonusses if the reach their goals and if they make profit they are allowed to keep it for themselves. As for innovation, I believe it is a myth that planned economics kills innovation. Innovation has always been done by scientists, engineers, universities. In capitalist countries companies hire their own scientists and experts to improve their production. In our planned economies, the state simply assigns them and rewards them accordingly. I do agree however that in the case of farmers, it might be more effective to give them greater freedom to make them cultivate and exploit their land more effectively. But IC'ly, this is out of the question for Myeongju where they have recently put 300,000 peasants and farmers in labor camps because of their alleged resistance to the collectivist system through sabotage. |
![]() |
|
| Carpathian | Nov 30 2013, 12:21 PM Post #9 |
![]()
A Collective Regime Of Peace And Love
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The Carpathian model is derived from Carpathia's heavy emphasis on principles of communism which are often ignored by the classic Soviet model. The entire "Power to the people" part is incredibly important in Carpathian society and lies at the very foundation of the Carpathian system. Take People's Edicts as an example of this, which allows the people to bypass the rulings of the government and impose their own laws. What the Carpathian economic model does, is enforce cooperation and collectivization in a more subtle way. This system fragments businesses down to a fundamental level, primarily supporting small businesses and limiting the growth of personal wealth through its dynamic income tax system (according to it, someone who earns an income of 1 million per month, gets taxed 90% or higher). This essentially kills the classic model of megacorporations, because the CEO of such a megacorporation would earn less than his workers, due to taxes. Thus, the only option remaining for businesses which need a large infrastructure for their products, is collectivization. And it works so well, that basically 97% of all businesses in Carpathia are collectivized. The reason such a system was implemented, was because of the afore mentioned "Power to the people" ideal. It is all about innovation, really. More heads are better than one and the Carpathian system leaves it up to the proletariat to control the direction and focus of this planned economy. |
![]() |
|
| Kingborough | Nov 30 2013, 10:05 PM Post #10 |
![]()
The Monarchist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Let me just start by saying, Comecon sounds way to much like ComicCon On a more serious note, I'm not sure Kingborough would be highly interested in this yet. I'll describe my system and get your thoughts perhaps? Kingborough utilises my homegrown hybrid of socialism, which is quite deviated from the RL form (the entirety of Kingborough's government is kind of a hybrid of RL ones, as none of the systems I've seen work ideally and so I took what I considered best out of various systems). We do actually have currency and buying and selling of goods happens - indeed most of the normal day to day economic factors at the people level are the same. Small business is even allowed to be owned privately, provided they employ less than 15 people and or have less than 3 stores/business locations. Whichever comes first. Where it gets different is as you get into the big stuff; In Kingborough the government practically operates as a massive megacorporation, owning most of the very large corporations and companies which handle things of 'national interest', such as public transport and energy companies, as well as a lot of foreign assets and utilise it to produce profit to provide the public services such as health care, most utilities (water, waste disposal, power, etc) and education (which are all entirely government provided). Business that is over the privately owned threshold and isn't state owned is owned by employees, with a non-majority non-voting number of stock (that is, stock that's purely acting as a tool for gaining investment (for the company selling) and dividend earnings (for the stock investors) allowed be to sold. These employee corporations run as a democracy, electing the board and voting on CEO choices among other things. They then share in the profits equally (there are no wages for employee companies, only for privates and governments). Our social welfare, for those who can't provide for themselves, isn't the common RL system either. Instead of handing over money to people to take care of themselves, they are given ration cards to feed and clothe themselves and provided public housing so to live on the bare necessities (it's designed to try and discourage people from slacking on purpose and living off government handouts). It's kind of a compromise of systems honestly. |
![]() |
|
| Nentsia | Dec 1 2013, 03:14 AM Post #11 |
![]()
Politically incorrect history student
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() Well Im not going to argue with anyone here how you should implement your socialism (that would open the gates to hell), but I do have some doubts on the systems that have been described here. First of all, it seems to me your economies function more like capitalist ones, but then just government-owned or in some cases owned by the workers themselves. Whether they are owned by the state, workers or whoever is shareholder, your companies seem to be profit-driven, producing for the markets. This either means they are exploiting their workers, or the prices of their products are such that they are not available to everyone. And because your companies enjoy so much autonomy, they are probably not producing according to what the country needs, but simply by how much they can sell. The only difference with capitalist systems is, is that they companies are partly or completely owned by the state which has granted them a monopoly. As for the companies that are owned by their workers, it is perhaps even clearer that they are practically capitalist ventures: if the company doesn't make profit, everyone suffers from the consequences. In other words, the company becomes profit driven. The company is producing goods that must be sold at a higher price. More importantly perhaps, what happens to those worker-led companies that make huge profits? If the employees of that company can keep it all for themselves, then you again allow one group of people to exploit the means of production for their own selfish benefit. @ Carpathian
This is your nation's choice, and I am not going to tell you how to organize your nation. The Myeongjan model is Jajonsim (which is basically a form of postcolonial self-assertion beneath which lies Marxist-Leninism at the core). According to this model, the broad masses are primarily only interested in jobs and wages. You cannot make a revolution with people who have only their direct material interests at heart. Revolution through the ballot is impossible because elections and referendums are dominated by short-term individual interests and not a greater vision to see what needs to be done to elevate the society to a higher, revolutionary, degree of freedom. Elections and referendums themselves are individualist by nature, for they require the individual to cast his vote based on his individual desires, wishes and interests. Elections are fundamentally conservative events, aimed at preservation and unable to bring fundamental or revolutionary changes to society. Instead you need the Dictatorship of the Proletariat through the rule of a Vanguard Party, which has dedicated itself to raising the people to a greater ideological awareness. A capitalist sees Dictatorship and Democracy as mutually exclusive, but a Communist understands that they can even be the same thing.
I must say I don't quite understand this model. First of all, how is it possible that there are people earning more than a million? Who determines these wages? I assume its not the state... But then these wages are based on a market mechanism? Besides that, I believe that if taxation is required to correct the income inequality, then that is probably a sign that there is no collectivist or planned economy at all, but a state-capitalist system at best where the state gives away monopoly rights to corporations who stick the profits in their own pockets.
Once again, this has little effect on innovation. A mineworker who happens to be co-owner of the mining company isn't magically going to innovate and invent a better mining machine. Innovation - whether in capitalist or planned economics - comes from centres of knowledge: universities, laboratories, scientific organizations, engineers. If you want innovation, just invest in that. And I don't see how this is a planned economy if ''the proletariat'' controls it. Lets say workers of factory A control that factory, and the workers of factory B control that one etc etc. Without any coordinating body above them, Factory A and B will start producing without having any idea at all how much is required. Either they produce for the market - which means this is essentially a form of corporate capitalism - or they follow a quota or a (five-years) plan that has been made by this coordinating body. @ King
This is my point that ''planning'' isn't the same as ''state-owned''. Your big industries might be state-owned, but the state itself acts as a commercial player. Its state-capitalism. Communists don't make every enterprise state-owned because they love the state so much, but because it is capable of economic planning that will fundamentally alter the economic structure ---> therefore also the social structure. Economic planning is about the distribution of goods that are needed, to relief every man from his search for material well-being. Planning is about making everything available to everyone, instead of keeping it reserved for the minority or the rich. If not everyone has access to the goods they need, then that means there is a group of people who (for their survival) must allow themselves to be exploited by those who do have money or resources. Wage slavery. Because a planned economy exactly tries to eliminate wage slavery, it makes all kinds of products available for everyone. Wages are in fact unimportant then, and are almost primarily used to reward the ones who do a little extra. With this money they can buy foreign goods or luxury products - such as a better car, jewelry or better clothes. That is why I had my doubts when Carpathia said there are people with wages of 1 million. I simply wonder then: if wages are still so important that they need to be that high, then money itself is probably still very important which is an indication that there is still a market mechanism in place where people have to pay for everything they need. And now my biggest issue with both of your systems: Of course you are allowed to organize your economy the way you think is best. But, if they are still fundamentally based on a market mechanism, albeit that the companies are state-owned or owned by their workers, makes them just as much incompatible with the Planned economies as other capitalist economies. Myeongju and Falsea would be in this Comecon, for they are both planned systems and they need partners to exchange resources and technology with for no country has it all. But I doupt whether Carpathia or Kingborough could participate in this kind of trade, for their companies are producing for markets, against market prices, with the goal of making profit. The underpriced selling of your commidities to Myeongju and Falsea will bankrupt them. Even if we sent goods in return. If your company A has to sell us computers against a very low price, it doesn't matter if we sent you oil because Company A is a company on itself - whether its owned by Mr Gates or the employees. |
![]() |
|
| Lomarre | Dec 1 2013, 10:43 AM Post #12 |
|
High-Kingdom of Lomarre
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() You silly, silly communists. Tear down this wall!
Edited by Lomarre, Dec 1 2013, 10:43 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Kingborough | Dec 1 2013, 04:43 PM Post #13 |
![]()
The Monarchist
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, why I was forced to make my economy work that way was Kingborough is a very export and foreign money orientated nation so I needed a way to compromise and stop the national economy just going 'poof'. As I described most basic necessities are provided by the state (I'm considering including food, clothing etc and such in this but I'm not sure yet if I want to go that far), but then the wages are used to buy 'luxuries' and foreign goods. Much of what we sell, such as surplus power, food, medical goods tourism, electronics, and of course the investment companies and trading industry goes overseas or is actually overseas business almost exclusively and then we use that money to buy other stuff to import/ I don't honestly think we'll need to be in Comecon out of necessity but I am interested and therefore I'd like your guys opinion on my whole system and how it meshes with normal socialism while we're discussing the idea of this. Thanks for your opinion so far Nentsia, I know it's not really socialism as RL imagined but more of using an idea where 'corporations are evil, because they manipulate politics and society to make more profit' so we eliminate the idea of evil corporations by entrusting a people run government with the economy. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · OOC Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
7:11 AM Jul 12
|
|
|
|
edge created by tiptopolive of ifsz

















![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)









...in addition, I personally don't like the notion of one country specializing in a certain product and being the provider of that product to the other countries part of the Comecon, because while it makes us collectively strong, individually we'll be easy to break economically and we'd gamble too much by placing the fate of our national economies into this organization. 



7:11 AM Jul 12