Communism, Marxism, Socialism, Capitalism, What are your thoughts?

[schlaufuchs]

That's what happens when you have free-market threads, anarchy! We need a centrally-planned thread where all of the posts are carefully drafted, crafted, and observed by a planning committee appointed to periodically adjust the posts of the thread based on changes in circumstances.

This is archetypal example #2, btw.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yes, the far left famously relies on electoral politics

Plenty of countries outside USA have fair elections.

Here the greens make up 5%. The left is polling around 60-65%.

They've got a charismatic effective leader that oozes empathy and isn't to preachy.

They don't campaign heavily on the crazier stuff. They leave that to the greens who are on 5%.

 

[Zardnaar]

Classic example of someone who hasn't actually read Marx, or else has only engaged with him obliquely or in excerpts.

Tried reading him it's God awful. Same as Mein Kampf.

 

[stinkubus]

Plenty of good You Tube channels that are more than happy to dumb it down for you if you can't read.

 

[El_Machinae]

This is archetypal example #2, btw.

I don't think there's been any discussion of how supply and demand are managed in people's socialist or communist stories.

 

[stinkubus]

That's because communism does not imply a centrally planned economy. It's core tenet is worker's control over the means of production. Those who work in the mills ought to own them.

You could absolutely have a communist society which chose to market and sell goods in the exact same way we do now.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I don't think there's been any discussion of how supply and demand are managed in people's socialist or communist stories.

Planned of course. The state supplies and, well, I guess that is it.

 

[El_Machinae]

That's because communism does not imply a centrally planned economy

Sure. I didn't say anything about a planned economy. I said there's been no discussion about managing supply and demand.

 

[stinkubus]

Sure. I didn't say anything about a planned economy. I said there's been no discussion about managing supply and demand.

What other choices are there other than central planning or the free for all of the "market"?

 

[El_Machinae]

Is this the Socratic method? I didn't ask any questions. Owen said that it's not centrally planned. No one disagreed. Also, no one has really illuminated. I guess nods were made to 'decisions will be made scientifically' with the understanding that the decisions would be made for the good of the community as whole. But that doesn't really provide any insight.

 

[Crezth]

I don't think there's been any discussion of how supply and demand are managed in people's socialist or communist stories.

Because it's an artificial criteria for good. It is precisely supply and demand why some people must starve despite there being a plenitude of food. It's a non-starter to assert you have to allow these market forces as such or else things won't "work." The way this system allows it to work is the problem. Why exactly can the production of necessities not be produced and administered on a scientific basis? If nutrition is the goal, you know how much nutrition you need to produce. If avoiding waste is the goal, you wait for consumption numbers every month just like the capitalists.

 

[Crezth]

Also I've discussed this over and over and users like to keep pretending "gosh socialists don't like discussing raw numbers and precise outcomes." It's slander at this point.

 

[Birdjaguar]

... If nutrition is the goal, you know how much nutrition you need to produce. If avoiding waste is the goal, you wait for consumption numbers every month just like the capitalists.

Jesus, I certainly hope that "sufficient nutrition" is not the main goal for food production in your view of the future. If the workers are the ones deciding, we may all want pancakes and lattes!

 

[amadeus]

It is precisely supply and demand why some people must starve despite there being a plenitude of food.

If we are going on the scientific basis, I see then no reason to avoid measuring outcomes. Despite having a large and well-educated workforce, abundant resources, and ample heavy manufacturing the Soviet Union had to buttress its food supply with grain imports from the West. The Kampucheans took this one step further and abolished money altogether, and a third of its population died in less than half a decade. There are numerous other examples, all producing results which would yield little praise.

It's a non-starter to assert you have to allow these market forces as such or else things won't "work." The way this system allows it to work is the problem.

I think @El_Machinae's complaint all along here has been that no one is willing to detail how it is done, just except that it will be done scientifically.

Why exactly can the production of necessities not be produced and administered on a scientific basis?

What is the scientific basis for putting the whole of economic control into the hands of a party-appointed committee?

If nutrition is the goal, you know how much nutrition you need to produce. If avoiding waste is the goal, you wait for consumption numbers every month just like the capitalists.

Given that things like this are so intuitive, how is it that the communist states managed to bungle it each and every time?

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think @El_Machinae's complaint all along here has been that no one is willing to detail how it is done, just except that it will be done scientifically.

I don't think anyone really knows how it would work. I would find it helpful if an advocate for socialism could explain how a single industry would work, say clothing manufacturing, and explain how decisions would be made and what kind of criteria would be used to make those decisions. It doesn't have to clothing. How about coffee products? Cars? Phones? Shoes?

In a world without markets or private property how would any of those get produced?

 

[Hygro]

Tried reading him it's God awful. Same as Mein Kampf.

Strange comparison.

 

[Crezth]

If we are going on the scientific basis, I see then no reason to avoid measuring outcomes. Despite having a large and well-educated workforce, abundant resources, and ample heavy manufacturing the Soviet Union had to buttress its food supply with grain imports from the West.

Well, yes, this is how trade works. You would agree the objective of autarkic planning is frequently undermined by certain realities in the world. The fact is the Soviet Union was also able to pay for that food, so it's clearly not any more dysfunctional than the US' trade balance.

Ultimately we are also measuring outcomes differently. If in your estimation western capitalism has been a success, you must also account for the transformation of vast swathes of America into economically depressed wastelands where the only jobs come from monopoly retailers and service providers. If the positive externalities make up for that, then something must be said also for the rise in life expectancy and the promulgation of free education and literacy in the Soviet Union.

What is the scientific basis for putting the whole of economic control into the hands of a party-appointed committee?

So that all people have food, medicine, and housing. That is the simple logic: since industrial society can produce more goods than it needs, people can have all that they need.

Given that things like this are so intuitive, how is it that the communist states managed to bungle it each and every time?

All economic planning, capitalist and socialist, privately or publicly managed, can and has been bungled. That is the human element. There is plenty of socialist planning that has not been bungled.

 

[Crezth]

I don't think anyone really knows how it would work. I would find it helpful if an advocate for socialism could explain how a single industry would work, say clothing manufacturing, and explain how decisions would be made and what kind of criteria would be used to make those decisions. It doesn't have to clothing. How about coffee products? Cars? Phones? Shoes?

In a world without markets or private property how would any of those get produced?

State committees. Production is executed according to plans and quotas. Productive enterprises don't need to be privately owned, they can be managed by public offices.

This is the 800th time I've made this post probably.

 

[amadeus]

Well, yes, this is how trade works. You would agree the objective of autarkic planning is frequently undermined by certain realities in the world.

Those realities came from within the confines of what is possible in the central planning of an economy. It seems odd that a group so opposed to hierarchical organization has determined that in order to abolish it, it must first build and manage one for itself.

The fact is the Soviet Union was also able to pay for that food, so it's clearly not any more dysfunctional than the US' trade balance.

The point is that a land and nation such as the Soviet Union would on paper be able to supply what you have outlined as basic needs but so frequently underperformed in comparison to its market-based competitors.

Ultimately we are also measuring outcomes differently. If in your estimation western capitalism has been a success, you must also account for the transformation of vast swathes of America into economically depressed wastelands where the only jobs come from monopoly retailers and service providers.

All things being equal, I would rather be a grocery store cashier in America than a teacher in Cuba. This is not an unpopular sentiment; boat traffic between Miami and Havana is hardly bi-directional.

If the positive externalities make up for that, then something must be said also for the rise in life expectancy and the promulgation of free education and literacy in the Soviet Union.

Part of it was smoke and mirrors that only became known after its collapse. Neither here nor there though as I’d hardly trade school fees in exchange for a Beria.

So that all people have food, medicine, and housing. That is the simple logic: since industrial society can produce more goods than it needs, people can have all that they need.

That is a restatement of goals and not of means to achieve them.

All economic planning, capitalist and socialist, privately or publicly managed, can and has been bungled. That is the human element. There is plenty of socialist planning that has not been bungled.

The intensity and frequency of bungles matters.

 

[Zardnaar]

Soviet Union struggled to pay for food.

Caused a foreign currency shortage. They made it illegal to own foreign currency lol and you had to exchange it at their fixed rates essentially stealing off their own citizens.

Assuming you aquired it somehow (probably a tip via a tourist/diplomat).

Alot of that food was bought in credit. Our ex prime minister said Russia offered a nuclear submarines to NZ to pay a food bill. NZ is nuclear free iirc we wrote the debt off.

Thing is USSR had enough arable land to feed itself. State planning was an utter failure in feeding itself even if the resources were there.

Having worked in food production and distribution central state planning would be virtually impossible.

Hell crank taxes through the roof and have state funded food distribution plus money would do a better job. During lockdown the government funded foodbanks so paying the charities works as well.

You could do that all the time and it's reasonably cheap.

NZ 5 million people, 13% of workers produce food and we can feed 40 million people on current production.

Soviet Union lol, throw in most Communist nation's and lol more they all starved.