Why Aren't Socialism and/or Communism better than Capitalism and/or Liberalism?

[Daw]

We just have not examples here.

Polish part of E30 has been turned into a nice autobahn recently, and I am not sure if the decision was made by some road-building company. Besides, because the speed of transit increased greatly, I am not sure if no family-run hotel businesses suffered as a result. Maybe there was no impact at all, I just don't know.

Another example would be the Kerch bridge. There was a tender run by the govt, and IIRC only one company participating because no one else could afford the initial expenses. Not very much of a competition, actually.

Your accomodations was crap, quite normal in communism.

Just quite normal, I'd say. Apartments with less than 30sq.m. of living space are still built in Prague, AFAIK. I mean, crappy accommodations are not socialist-specific as they are largely supposed to be. Capitalism does not automatically and magically place everyone in a palace.

It's capitalism, and my wife's cousin and her family of 4 live in a 1-room apartment and she's unemployed, and her husband's earnings will allow them to buy a bigger place in about 400 years if the prices don't go up.

So when Warpus says "communism sucks" because of the poor living conditions, I can say "capitalism sucks" for the same very reason, and we both have a point.

I suggest we review some blueprints of real apartments. I bet horrifying hellholes can be found anywhere in the world.

So far I can go with movies:

- The apartment Hugh Grant William Thacker lived in in "Notting Hill" - congested crap.
- The apartment Chandler and Joey rented together (!) in "Friends" - tiny crap with no kitchen and it's built too close to another building.
- The apartment Sheldon and Leonard shared ("Big Bang Theory") is a typical Khrushcevka (crap), and not a good one.
- The apartment Monica and Rachel occupied ("Friends" again) was better, but still no kitchen and they had to go to the balcony through the window (WTH?).
- The apartment Ross occupied (still "Friends") before he moved into the ugly naked guy's place - tiny hole in a tree. And a "micro loft" they tried to sell him was an unrealistic joke, I guess... right?
- The apartment Korben Dallas ("Fifth element") lives in is an unbelievable cra... oh, wait, it's in 2236, the capitalist future. Something nice to head to. Or... OMG, we're already knee-deep in it, and it's even worse when it's real!

Anecdotally, my parents were just going to work but didnt work at all. Most of time they were socialising

No surprise there was shortage of everything then...

both my grandfathers were forced labor in uranium mines. I think that majority of people would love it.

I think that uranium had to be mined somehow. By some people. Everywhere. So, since uranium was mined world-wide, uranium mining is a world-wide atrocity issue, not socialist-inherent.

 

[warpus]

I was more pointing out that you didnt need worry that you will be not able pay bills. Job should be practically lost only by political reasons.

From my experience, and this is 100% anecdotal, my parents and family had a much better time not worrying about bills and finances here in Canada. When we arrived in Canada we were put on welfare right away and it was so much better (in terms of payment and lifestyle) than what we were used to under communism.

I mean, welfare sucks, and my parents didn't want to be on it, but under communism most of their income was spent on rent and food. Almost nothing left for anything else. In Canada, even on welfare, things were quite a bit better. And once my parents actually found jobs, things improved a lot more then.

Not to say that we had to worry about not being able to pay bills under either system, but under the communist system, even with both of my parents working as teachers, finances were so tight it was depressing.

Anecdotally, my parents were just going to work but didnt work at all. Most of time they were socialising And they hadnt good political profile, both my grandfathers were forced labor in uranium mines. I think that majority of people would love it.

Not my parents, they prefer to work and are used to being hard workers. They hated welfare and get off it as soon as they could. I don't think they would enjoy going to a job every day where you just sit around and chat. First of all it seems like it's costing somebody money, likely society or a part of society (what private owner would allow their employees to sit around and do nothing? sounds like a state job) and so it's immoral and my parents wouldn't like that part of it at all. Second of all they hate feeling useless, and sitting around doing nothing all day would make them feel that.

But I mean, that's just my parents, hard workers who sacrificed everything to get our butts over here to Canada.

 

[REDY]

I suggest we review some blueprints of real apartments. I bet horrifying hellholes can be found anywhere in the world.

Its about choice. I live in modernized communist flat. I have no problem with that. But when I would like to move next week to large house, I can.

I think that uranium had to be mined somehow. By some people. Everywhere. So, since uranium was mined world-wide, uranium mining is a world-wide atrocity issue, not socialist-inherent.

Forced labor is.

From my experience, and this is 100% anecdotal, my parents and family had a much better time not worrying about bills and finances here in Canada. When we arrived in Canada we were put on welfare right away and it was so much better (in terms of payment and lifestyle) than what we were used to under communism.

I mean, welfare sucks, and my parents didn't want to be on it, but under communism most of their income was spent on rent and food. Almost nothing left for anything else. In Canada, even on welfare, things were quite a bit better. And once my parents actually found jobs, things improved a lot more then.

Rent+energy was something like 10% in 80s Czechoslovakia for average salary, now its about 40% in CZ.
The food is more tricky, but generally the proportion is same.
Plus todays unemployment is about 6%.

Not my parents, they prefer to work and are used to being hard workers. They hated welfare and get off it as soon as they could. I don't think they would enjoy going to a job every day where you just sit around and chat. First of all it seems like it's costing somebody money, likely society or a part of society (what private owner would allow their employees to sit around and do nothing? sounds like a state job) and so it's immoral and my parents wouldn't like that part of it at all. Second of all they hate feeling useless, and sitting around doing nothing all day would make them feel that.

But I mean, that's just my parents, hard workers who sacrificed everything to get our butts over here to Canada.

I didnt want imply that my parents were lazy. My mother is programmer and father is engineeering technologist. At least from my mother I know how she was trying change job to be actually useful, but no chance.

 

[Leoreth]

Rent+energy was something like 10% in 80s Czechoslovakia for average salary, now its about 40% in CZ.
The food is more tricky, but generally the proportion is same.
Plus todays unemployment is about 6%.

I wonder what the purchasing power of those 90% percent was compared to the 60% today.

 

[warpus]

I remember when we arrived in Prague from Poland, during our escape. We had tickets to go to Yugoslavia on vacation, but we got off the train in Prague and my dad went on a mission to get tickets to West Germany for all of us.

Anyway, walking around Prague was eyeopening. Me, my mom, and my sisters walked around the city while my dad was (doing whatever the hell he did) to get those tickets. I will never forget how blown away I was by the stuff they had in their stores. We had nothing like that in Poland! The thing that sticks out most is a doll that talked. This really blew my mind. I had no idea what the doll was saying, but I thought I was in a magical fantasy land.

I really have no idea why things seemed so good in Prague and so horrible in Czestochowa Poland.. but yeah, once we actually got to West Germany things seemed even more amazing. Quite a bit. But we ended up in immigrant camps for a year so we didn't really get to see much until later.

Either way the Czechs seemed to have it a lot better than us, at least from my experience.

 

[Daw]

Its about choice.

Then it's the same whether someone has no choice because he is not allowed to or he has no choice because he can't afford.

Well, you can, that's cool. For you. For those who can't it only makes it more bitter.

Forced labor is.

Than it's the same, too. Means of forcing the labor are different, but forced labor it is.

I wonder what the purchasing power of those 90% percent was compared to the 60% today.

I would cautiously guess it's largely incomparable. No money could buy you a smartphone those days, and now everyone has one... or a few.

I remember when we arrived in Prague from Poland

Interesting. Have you been there lately?

My last visit to Prague was 1 year ago, in January this year. And I drove through Poland, too. If that matters, I am used to visiting Western and Southern Germany about once or twice a year (just because my POIs are mostly in Rottweil and sometimes in Dusseldorf while the most convenient flights from Moscow are to Munich, so I tend to come there and then drive). Would be interesting to compare our impressions.

 

[warpus]

No, I haven't been back there since that one time in the mid 80s. I was very young back then, but old enough to remember some details, but my impression of the place can't really be better explained than I already have, I don't think.

I have been back to Poland though, 11 years ago now, and the place REALLY changed.. a lot. It's probably changed quite a bit since then as well, so I can't really imagine what Prague is like today. I have a friend who lives there, so I see pictures and all, but the world has changed a lot since I was there.

 

[Natan35]

1. What is truthfully wrong with communism and/or socialism?

2. Are they superior political systems to capitalism and/or liberalism?

3. Also feel free to comment on the definitions posted above.

For all THREE of the questions above,

1. I think that what's wrong with communism(Marxism-Leninism) is that... Well, it only ever happens due to revolutions, and its anti democratic. I oppose the idea of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" since I do not think its possible (some people require more than they can give, as simple as that). Plus, some people just contribute to the society more than others.

2. No. I would define myself as a socialist Liberal(look at my PC score below) since I believe that the only way to balance the community's good with individual good is through mixed economy. I don't think any of those systems is better than the other as-is.

 

[onejayhawk]

It's not directly relevant, but there is some erudite discussion of soviet style socialism in this thread.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=32548

J

 

[Flying Pig]

1. I think that what's wrong with communism(Marxism-Leninism) is that... Well, it only ever happens due to revolutions, and its anti democratic. I oppose the idea of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" since I do not think its possible (some people require more than they can give, as simple as that). Plus, some people just contribute to the society more than others.

Do those two statements not cancel each other out? The whole point of social security (as designed by the Labour government after the war) was that some people, at some times, are either producing more than they need or needing more than they can produce, and that social security could average this out to ensure that nobody ever had to starve, freeze or go without medical treatment.

 

[civvver]

All you have to do is look at history, the industrial revolution and what followed dramatic increased the quality of life for a huge portion of the planet's population. Capitalism enabled much of the industrial revolution.

 

[Galgus]

No.

People are sapient (well, some of them, which is quite enough).
People are competitive.
People are cooperative.

When there's a need to build a factory, sapience and cooperativeness come to help, the former helps realize the need, the latter helps gather a group of specialists able to do it: we've got demand to satisfy with our distribution system, a new factory will increase productive output to satisfy the demand faster, so everybody will benefit, so let's do it!

When people compete, they work harder. There are many kinds of sports, labor/productivity is just one of them. Achievements will earn you fame and respect, and there are people who think these things are worth the effort. Proof.


While distributing resources efficiently to meet everyone's desires is something at which socialist structures achieved poor scores so far, it also is something capitalism doesn't even try to do.


The best information system is an information system. The best thing to calculate is a calculator and the best thing to compute is a computer.

In 1920, when Ludwig von Mises rose the issue, none were around. Neither they were when USSR made its try. And they still were weak when Mises' follower Friedrich Hayek died aged 92 in 1991. And they are largely lacked still, although it is already technically possible to implement them.

Today, a central planner might look like an on-line shop, only bigger.

Self interest is natural to our psychology, and it is not synonymous with greed.

We want to improve our lot in life, care for our loved ones, and put food on the table.

We are also, on average, very demotivated when no matter how hard we work, things never get better for us or everyone else.

Such is the situation for a single hard worker where every one of his colleagues is slacking off, and he gains no special benefit.

Why would there be some automatic spirit of competition in this scenario?

Why not take life easy since your hard work would only be a drop in the bucket for anyone anyway?

Color me unimpressed that you cite the failed Soviet Union for your proof.

He is rather strongly encouraged to simply slack off with the rest of them.

This can even be seen in history beyond modern communist examples, going all the way back to the Plymouth colony, though it is rather self-evident in our nature.

And for all your talk on human generosity, your system relies on a coercive trampling of property rights, and a political climate that sets people against each other in how it is divided up.
_______________________________

Tell me, how do you know when there is need to build a factory?

In a capitalist system an entrepreneur or an established businessman looking to expand creates a factory when they see, through price signals, that it will likely be profitable.

In communist Russia or China and even India in a time of central planning massive schemes that were supposedly going to make society richer turned out to be poorly thought through and led to horrible, unnecessary human suffering.

But this moves heavily to the second point.
_______________________________________________

You fundamentally misunderstand capitalism then, and how the price mechanism works.

People make money when they provide what people want, spend it on what they want, and the process creates a huge number of efficient, mutually beneficial exchanges.

Capitalism is not a perfect system, but it has done more to alleviate human misery and poverty than any other economic force.
_________________________________________

The main difficulty isn't calculating the precise availability of materials and costs of production, though that is formidable, it is knowing everyone's desires.

We value things in an ordinal way - only in how we value them relative to other things - and these values are only meaningfully expressed in action.

Even if you were to send out a massive, ridiculously time-consuming poll, you would not gain an accurate understanding of everyone's preferences for everything.

(Not to mention how readily such a process could be corrupted by political favors, or how quickly a ruling and a subservient class would form between those with connections to power and those without.)

Partially because no individual fully understands how the economy works - how to produce cars and apples and vacations in the most efficient way possible and how much we value them relative to another and how much of one to produce at the expense of everything else.

And in a capitalist society, no individual needs this understanding with the dispersed information of all actors in the market coordinating the price system.

 

[Daw]

I'm going to say something which I think would set me up against a wall in front of a firing squad in 1937, but...

Well, it only ever happens due to revolutions

It only ever happened due to revolutions so far. I don't think it's the only possible way though.

Imagine an iceberg. That would be the society with the richest on the top and the poorest in the bottom (whatever that means).

The temperature of the water the iceberg floats in increases, reflecting the technological level growth boosting overall productive capabilities, and makes the iceberg melt, which may create a disbalance. If nothing is done about it, at some point the disbalance makes the iceberg roll. That would be revolution.

It is an unpleasant thing to the iceberg: it may crack and some parts of it may fall off, and for sure its top will not be the top any more.

If you are the guy on the top or close to the of the iceberg, and you don't want to get into the cold water, you may think that it might be a good idea to lighten the top by shoveling some of the mass off it, because it will prevent the iceberg from flipping. That would be a government taking up social incentives like welfare payments, unemployment benefits, public schools and hospitals financed with tax dollars, etc. These are bits of socialism although they might be called different names, but essentially that's what they are.

The point is that whatever you do, whether you manage to avoid a single rotation of the iceberg or it flips many times over, eventually it will melt. Completely. That would be communism. And it is inevitable.

But: theoretically, it is possible to arrive there safely. Practically, the bottom guys are too impatient and the top guys are too greedy, and they all are too stubborn to keep their icebergs from flipping over.

This is why it has only ever happened due to revolutions so far.

and its anti democratic.

Same here. Not necessarily. People can vote for it, why not? And if they do, it will be democratic. So, theoretically, it can be. Has never been so far though, again.

 

[aelf]

All you have to do is look at history, the industrial revolution and what followed dramatic increased the quality of life for a huge portion of the planet's population. Capitalism enabled much of the industrial revolution.

You can say that of a lot of stuff. Ancient empires enabled trade and technological innovation for their time that changed the world. Do you think those are superior systems?

 

[Flying Pig]

I'm going to say something which I think would set me up against a wall in front of a firing squad in 1937, but...
It only ever happened due to revolutions so far. I don't think it's the only possible way though.

Imagine an iceberg. That would be the society with the richest on the top and the poorest in the bottom (whatever that means).

The temperature of the water the iceberg floats in increases, reflecting the technological level growth boosting overall productive capabilities, and makes the iceberg melt, which may create a disbalance. If nothing is done about it, at some point the disbalance makes the iceberg roll. That would be revolution.

It is an unpleasant thing to the iceberg: it may crack and some parts of it may fall off, and for sure its top will not be the top any more.

If you are the guy on the top or close to the of the iceberg, and you don't want to get into the cold water, you may think that it might be a good idea to lighten the top by shoveling some of the mass off it, because it will prevent the iceberg from flipping. That would be a government taking up social incentives like welfare payments, unemployment benefits, public schools and hospitals financed with tax dollars, etc. These are bits of socialism although they might be called different names, but essentially that's what they are.

The point is that whatever you do, whether you manage to avoid a single rotation of the iceberg or it flips many times over, eventually it will melt. Completely. That would be communism. And it is inevitable.

But: theoretically, it is possible to arrive there safely. Practically, the bottom guys are too impatient and the top guys are too greedy, and they all are too stubborn to keep their icebergs from flipping over.

This is why it has only ever happened due to revolutions so far.



Same here. Not necessarily. People can vote for it, why not? And if they do, it will be democratic. So, theoretically, it can be. Has never been so far though, again.

I'm afraid I don't agree with the metaphor. The democratic process is stacked such that it is extremely difficult to push through anything which threatens the power of the ruling classes, because they are (by definition) those most able to convince voters to act in their interests. This is before we get into the very real violence that underpins society: to use a simple example, the state would collapse if we all stopped paying taxes, but there are people who will come and throw you in jail, or forcibly take your property, if you refuse to pay up. We're no longer at the point where you will be shot at for going on strike, but the ease with which the media (and the police) can move between calling things 'protests' and 'riots' shows that the state is still not above asserting itself by breaking bodies. If you're an anarchist - which all communists are - you also have the problem that all power corrupts, so even a communist party that wins a democratic election is extremely unlikely to throw away its own power and bring about communism.

 

[Daw]

Self interest is natural to our psychology, and it is not synonymous with greed.

Sure. Interest is a great motivator. We spend huge amount of time doing stuff for that reason. We play Civ. We all played Civ. We planned, thought, counted, managed, we spent hefty time and effort. Then we modded, tested, cured crashes, tested more, hunted bug, reworked the smashed balance, tested over... let others play. We didn't get paid for anything of it. It was fun. It was interesting.

We read books, we thought, we posted stuff and read replies, we argued so late into the night that it was getting early morning already, and we failed to change each other's opinion, or maybe... no, we failed. Well, for most part of it. Anyway, we spent hefty time and effort again. We didn't get paid. It was fun. It was interesting.

We did it all for ourselves.

We have hobbies. Don't get me started on hobbies... it's a time consuming black hole. And it is normal not to get paid for hobbies.

We want to improve our lot in life, care for our loved ones, and put food on the table.

Yup. And when that's taken care of we switch to what we like, and get massively motivated at that.

Especially if we think that the fun stuff we do is also the right thing to do and may be used for a greater good.

Tell me, how do you know when there is need to build a factory?

When there's a demand which I can't satisfy with my current production capacities. No, wait, that's under socialism/communism. Under capitalism demand is necessary but insufficient. Purchasing power must be added there.

In a capitalist system an entrepreneur or an established businessman looking to expand creates a factory when they see, through price signals, that it will likely be profitable.

No, that can't be what it is. That way I will stuck with nothing new and get booted out of the market in a year or a few. To avoid that I need an R&D department popping out new stuff. And for that new stuff I can only vaguely guess if there is a demand or not: it's the new stuff, there's no price on it yet.

You fundamentally misunderstand capitalism then, and how the price mechanism works.

Most probably. I'm a freshman there. Walking blind.

People make money when they provide what people want, spend it on what they want, and the process creates a huge number of efficient, mutually beneficial exchanges.

Sounds great. Too great to be true, actually. Okay, let's try it: I'm a biology teacher, but nobody wants it enough to pay me sufficiently much to afford a Bentley I want. I switched to selling medical equipment, which is badly needed and very much wanted, I know that for sure, but many of them can't afford it, and those who can are too few to amass enough revenue for the medical equipment production owner to pay me enough bonuses to afford a Bentley.

What do I do wrong and when I get my Bentley?

Capitalism is not a perfect system, but it has done more to alleviate human misery and poverty than any other economic force.

Absolutely. It doesn't follow though that there never ever can be a system that would be even closer to what's perfect.

Even if you were to send out a massive, ridiculously time-consuming poll, you would not gain an accurate understanding of everyone's preferences for everything.

It's not about poll. It's about ordering.

You go on-line, visit a page for the "central planner" and there is a rubricator for all goods being produced. Anywhere. Globally. You search for what you want, pick and order. That simple. It's produced and delivered, like pizza. If the production queue is full (which can be years ahead if the product is popular), you'll have to wait for your turn. And while you're waiting you can go and help building a new factory that will produce the stuff you're waiting for - this way you'll know how you'll benefit from what you're doing.

 

[Daw]

I'm afraid I don't agree with the metaphor. The democratic process is stacked such that it is extremely difficult to push through anything which threatens the power of the ruling classes, because they are (by definition) those most able to convince voters to act in their interests.

True. That's why Cheezy says "it can't be amended, it has to be smashed" - or something similar. I disagree with him there saying that it has to be fed to the govts by really small bites. Then more. And more. And more. Until they are full of it. Until they become it. The problem is that my way will likely take generations. And people tend to want things now. Or for Xmas. Or at least in their lifetime.

If you're an anarchist - which all communists are - you also have the problem that all power corrupts, so even a communist party that wins a democratic election is extremely unlikely to throw away its own power and bring about communism.

I have a problem with self-identification. Things like production and distribution must be managed, or they will fall apart - that's what I think. And I am not sure if it makes me an anarchist or totalitarian, and whether it is about power at all. Also, I am uncertain if this applies to communism, or capitalism, or both...

In fact, I find Warpus' model (below) very agreeable. I'd call some things differently to sell it to [radical and/or terminologically concerned] communists, but naming doesn't change the essence, in this case:

And IMO, actually, a partially communist economy (that's also regulated) could work in a liberal democractic society, I think. So, none of that single-party bullcrap. There are parties, you vote, you can start a business, the economy works almost as normal, and the party that wins gets to call the shots - but the constitution has in it certain communist caveats - such as giving the state control of certain natural resources and means of production. Or something like that. I see nothing wrong with the model in my mind.. at least on the surface.

 

[Galgus]

Sure. Interest is a great motivator. We spend huge amount of time doing stuff for that reason. We play Civ. We all played Civ. We planned, thought, counted, managed, we spent hefty time and effort. Then we modded, tested, cured crashes, tested more, hunted bug, reworked the smashed balance, tested over... let others play. We didn't get paid for anything of it. It was fun. It was interesting.

We read books, we thought, we posted stuff and read replies, we argued so late into the night that it was getting early morning already, and we failed to change each other's opinion, or maybe... no, we failed. Well, for most part of it. Anyway, we spent hefty time and effort again. We didn't get paid. It was fun. It was interesting.

We did it all for ourselves.

We have hobbies. Don't get me started on hobbies... it's a time consuming black hole. And it is normal not to get paid for hobbies.

Yup. And when that's taken care of we switch to what we like, and get massively motivated at that.

Especially if we think that the fun stuff we do is also the right thing to do and may be used for a greater good.

When there's a demand which I can't satisfy with my current production capacities. No, wait, that's under socialism/communism. Under capitalism demand is necessary but insufficient. Purchasing power must be added there.

No, that can't be what it is. That way I will stuck with nothing new and get booted out of the market in a year or a few. To avoid that I need an R&D department popping out new stuff. And for that new stuff I can only vaguely guess if there is a demand or not: it's the new stuff, there's no price on it yet.

Most probably. I'm a freshman there. Walking blind.

Sounds great. Too great to be true, actually. Okay, let's try it: I'm a biology teacher, but nobody wants it enough to pay me sufficiently much to afford a Bentley I want. I switched to selling medical equipment, which is badly needed and very much wanted, I know that for sure, but many of them can't afford it, and those who can are too few to amass enough revenue for the medical equipment production owner to pay me enough bonuses to afford a Bentley.

What do I do wrong and when I get my Bentley?

Absolutely. It doesn't follow though that there never ever can be a system that would be even closer to what's perfect.


It's not about poll. It's about ordering.

You go on-line, visit a page for the "central planner" and there is a rubricator for all goods being produced. Anywhere. Globally. You search for what you want, pick and order. That simple. It's produced and delivered, like pizza. If the production queue is full (which can be years ahead if the product is popular), you'll have to wait for your turn. And while you're waiting you can go and help building a new factory that will produce the stuff you're waiting for - this way you'll know how you'll benefit from what you're doing.

We agree on self-interest, I guess.

Being able to afford more stuff, live better, and provide better for your future and loved ones is a powerful motivator.
____________________________________

We don't just stop at what we need to live: we would all like to be as prosperous as possible.

With ethical limitations on our behavior for most of us, of course.

I don't know about you, but I've never found my work to be "fun", or for that matter the great majority of things that must be done.

If you do, I'm happy you have found happiness in your work.

The silver lining is that automation may render many particularly unpleasant tasks obsolete in the future.
_______________________________________

We always demand things, we always want more stuff.

We simply balance what we want with what else we want, limited by what we can afford and what we save for the future.

Savings is the true basis of sound investment in the future: holding off consumption today to improve things tomorrow.

To increase consumption, you must first increase production.

Demand is your desire for something and your ability to pay, which necessitates production both for the product and, in capitalism, for what you produced in exchange.
___________________________________________

It doesn't need to be new stuff the factory is producing: it could simply be stuff that already exists that the entrepreneur sees untapped market potential for.

You are correct that there is uncertainty in entrepreneurship, but the beauty of the capitalist system is that it both provides a strong incentive to make correct predictions and weeds out failed businesses.

There is some uncertainty, but there are also indicators for those who look on what may succeed and fail.

When production is tangled with political processes, it often becomes more about the wants of special interests than efficiency.

See our absurd Sugar tariff in the US.
_________________________________

So because a subset of people can't buy a specific product, you can't make money by selling what people desire?

The poor can't buy yachts generally: does that mean there is no market for them?

Though they have less purchasing power, there is still much money to be made selling products they demand.

Why else would we have cheap food and housing?

Off-topic, I'd personally compromise with a basic income system to support the poor - everyone gets a check for a set amount of money from progressive taxation.
______________________________________

Perfection is not for this world, unfortunately.

The closest I can think of to a perfect economic system would be post-scarcity: where everyone can have everything they want.

But as we are nowhere close to that impossibility, we must choose a system that produces resources efficiently to increase our wealth.
_________________________________

This honestly made me laugh a little, you advertising shortages.

Without any real cost to the one ordering, nothing much would be preventing them from placing as many orders as possible.

Some suckers might order less so others can have more or go work on factories, but rather quickly people would see that this has no perceivable benefit to them or others, and simply order everything while being coach potatoes.

That system doesn't even attempt to ration consumption until the good literally runs out: in that sense it fails even harder than the Soviet Union's planners did.

 

[Flying Pig]

True. That's why Cheezy says "it can't be amended, it has to be smashed" - or something similar. I disagree with him there saying that it has to be fed to the govts by really small bites. Then more. And more. And more. Until they are full of it. Until they become it. The problem is that my way will likely take generations. And people tend to want things now. Or for Xmas. Or at least in their lifetime.

I have a problem with self-identification. Things like production and distribution must be managed, or they will fall apart - that's what I think. And I am not sure if it makes me an anarchist or totalitarian, and whether it is about power at all. Also, I am uncertain if this applies to communism, or capitalism, or both...

In fact, I find Warpus' model (below) very agreeable. I'd call some things differently to sell it to [radical and/or terminologically concerned] communists, but naming doesn't change the essence, in this case:

I think state control is socialist rather than communist: under communism, nobody owns or controls any of the means of production. I don't think anyone's arguing that democratic socialism cannot exist - the problem is the 'withering away' of the state, which anarchists do not believe will ever happen.

 

[Daw]

Spoiler :

Galgus, it's hard for me to keep our discussion organized because although your splitting lines are nice (they are really great, I even started to use them myself at times) you don't bother splitting my post you quote in a lump, so I have hard time figuring out which part of your reply goes goes to what part of my post. So...

...please pardon me if I omit something important, but here's what caught my eye:

We don't just stop at what we need to live: we would all like to be as prosperous as possible.
[...]
We always demand things, we always want more stuff.

No. Totally not. What madness makes you think so?

Well, I am sure consumption is kinda sports for some crackpot people with obsessive black hole demand, but it's far from the normality I know. Really, it sounds like a medical condition.

I don't know about you, but I've never found my work to be "fun", or for that matter the great majority of things that must be done.

If you do, I'm happy you have found happiness in your work.

The silver lining is that automation may render many particularly unpleasant tasks obsolete in the future.

Me too, actually. This makes me vote for communism Because I can be replaced with a script right now and get booted out of my office. (Don't tell my boss, but in fact I already have replaced myself largely with automation capacities of MS Office, which enables me to chat here for most part of my "working" day).

So, currently my situation is the following: I have a job with my laptop doing my work for me, and I get paid for it. It gives me money to make my living and free time to waist with you. Or spend on self-education web surfing. There isn't much more to do with it, because the bad thing is that I still have to be in the office.

Need to convince them I need to switch to home based... what do you think, should I?

We simply balance what we want with what else we want, limited by what we can afford and what we save for the future.

In fact, when you put it this way it starts making much more sense to me. I want freedom for things I'm interested in, but since I can't afford it (without loosing well-being I got used to), I save it for the future (which will apparently never come). Did I get it right?

the beauty of the capitalist system is that it both provides a strong incentive to make correct predictions and weeds out failed businesses.

The bad thing about it is that it also weeds out people involved in the failed businesses.

Off-topic, I'd personally compromise with a basic income system to support the poor - everyone gets a check for a set amount of money from progressive taxation.

Great, that's good enough for now. Perfectly matches my concept. Do you have children? Grandchildren? Great-grandchildren? I (or someone like me) will talk next steps with them when their time will come.

The closest I can think of to a perfect economic system would be post-scarcity: where everyone can have everything they want.

That's a very nice description of communism, if you ask me.

But as we are nowhere close to that impossibility, we must choose a system that produces resources efficiently to increase our wealth.

That would be socialism (you may call it differently, but essentially it will be it).

This honestly made me laugh a little, you advertising shortages.

No, I'm advertising free distribution, shortages is what it becomes if you go with the nonsensical sabotage thing you describe as ordering tons of stuff you don't need and can't use anyway, which will make me come up with some limit-the-madness things like "one man, one item of". Then people will yell about their freedoms being stomped, I guess.