The assertion that socialism “worked” for seventy years is a ridiculous assertion against the calculation argument for many reasons. Amongst them includes the fact that the entire statement is relative for, though socialist economies like the USSRs may have had decent looking economic aggregates, they worked wonders ensuring almost all citizens not connected to the ruling party were subjugated to grinding poverty - a sign of an economy slowly dying, not working. Also, one must take into account that the USSR did not exist in an isolated socialist world that the calculation debate primarily assumes, which will give prices originating from the outside market economies to the economic planners in the socialist commonwealth to work with thus ensuring economic collapse takes far longer than it would had the same nation been isolated.
Added to “EVERYONE” must be a correlary that they must be connected with the ruling political party for it to be true.
The calculation problem is aimed not at agrarian economies, but complex industrial ones. This is merely a ridiculous ad absurdam, which is even taken into account in the calculation problem, that has little value.
Ah yes, it is to the dictator’s own definition of “fairness” that society must conform itself, not any objective principles.
Its possible that he doesn’t see a difference between his children and other children. But most people care a lot more for their children than for others. He has earned his wealth, and has the right to give it to whomever he chooses. There is nothing unfair or wrong about this.
If you think the calculation problem fails for agrarian economies, then I’ve already won half my argument about a theoretical communist government working.
It is hard to determine optimal decisions when they are “complex industrial ones”, but this does not mean it is impossible, only more difficult. So theoretically, a government could see its way through these complex decisions better than the marketplace.
I’m not saying any modern governments can approach this, but that we shouldn’t pretend like these problems can’t be overcome. Thus defending theoretical models of communism.
Also, with respect to the dictator defining fairness in society, it is certainly possible that a government conform to objective principles rather than a dictator’s personal opinion. Communism isn’t built around one dude its supposed to be about a party of the people.
First of all, “society” can not be unfair. Society is just a group of individuals.
Second, if this is unfair, then it implies that Jim has a moral obligation to give up what he has earned for things that he does not want. In other words, it would imply that others have a right to the fruit of his labor, without doing anything for him.
Sure, it would be nice for him to give it to those who need it most, but it is his, and there is no obligation for him to relinquish his own property for any reason.
Fairness has nothing to do with moral obligation. Morals are metaphysical. Eating food is not.
I’m saying a communist society could be prosperous. If you think that it is immoral to live in a society where no one starves because people are stopped from making selfish/stupid decisions, whatever. No one agrees with your weird ethics.
Furthermore, even if we follow your logic, feeding starving people with rich people’s money doesn’t imply that everyone has a right to everyone else’s labor. It means that everyone has a right to eat and if necessary people will be denied the fruits of their labor to promote these ideas.
You’re right that a lot of governments have completely failed and then there’s nothing for anyone to eat.
This does not mean that all communist governments have to fail. Central planning can theoretically take care of market operations. The degree to which it is successful depends upon how intelligent, benign, and informed it is. Virtually no governments have these characteristics, but this does not rule out the possibility of there being a government that does. Such a government could outperform the free market easily.
A simple example would be if I went to Africa, and forced (if necessary) people into using better agricultural practices that they don’t know about. I’d revolutionize their economy by force.
We just lose sight of the power of coercion to make things better because all modern leaders are retarded and malevolent.
Perhaps. Maybe all of those people without food should find a way to feed themselves, or perish. He’s only buying one sports car, not deferring all future sports cars in order to feed them.
I’m not sure how punishing production, and subsidizing production shortfalls is going to create prosperity.
Where are you going to get enough over producers to subsidize the under producers? Everyone can be an under producer, but you will have to coerce over producers when you can’t find enough excellent people who buy into the ideology of altruism.
No one has a right to eat.
So you don’t support property rights, and you do support coercion.
Buying a sports car means that labor has to be spent to make a sports car.
Labor is scarce. Therefore it should go to satisfying important things before frivolous things.
Also, you’re right, the freeloader problem is a problem, but can be overcome by culture. This is the whole point. That communism WOULD work if people weren’t selfish freeloaders. If people realized their efforts were for the greater good (themselves included), communism would work.
Also, some people, like INFANTS can’t work.
Society taking care of infants >>>> Society ignoring infants = starving infants.
You’re not really punishing production. This sort of model presumes that the government lets people do their own thing and then confiscates their goods.
Rather a good communist government is an entrepreneur and actually sets up beneficial programs.
Also, my claim that everyone has a right to eat is not a metaphysical one. I’m saying that you can make it so that everyone gets food = right to eat
In order for central planning to “take care” of market operations, it would have to be able to assess and know- at all points in time- the desires, time preference, personal tastes, and moral values (aomng other things) of each of its citizens. These are things we as individuals use in our day to day lives without realizing their impact on our decisions. It would then have to coordinate all of these attributes (as well as the available goods and labor) in order to provide what people need without using a profit/loss mechanism to inform them of efficiency or result. So how would they know what was desired? Would they use surveys or aggregated numbers and averages to determine what the “average” person (as though such a thing existed) needs? If so, how much time would it take? Would it be able to accurately predict disasters or illness that affect the personal valuation factors, so that the central planners would be able to allocate the goods and services swiftly as they were needed? I fail to see how such an omniscient central planner could exist, able to coordinate intertemporal factors on such a wide scale with efficiency.
Just like how in theory, a government like Earth has in Star Trek could work, only no one really knows for sure how it works, not even the writer’s. At least with Star Trek, they have technology that is almost acceptable (fiction-wise) for being able to curb scarcity, somewhat.
I would love to read any novels you come up that show the communist society in a prosperous period of progress, however.
You seem to be forgetting that society is merely a group of individuals. Do you really think that most parents would simply allow their children to starve without taking some sort of action to provide for them?
You’re right. It would be an insanely complex and currently unworkable task. This does not mean we can strike out theoretical models for government. Rather, it means we can criticize all modern governments for failing to properly solve the calculation problem.
The point of this thread is for a theoretical exploration of the validity of communism, not a critique of “how would you do this? durrr”
@ Nitroadict
A little facetious, but that’s the point. Really proponents of communism receive a lot of shit from practical arguments that have little or nothing to do with theoretical foundations.
Personally, I think communists should oppose modern governments just as much as anarchists, because a theoretically sound communist knows in exactly which ways his government is failing.