Ahh, communism is a good theory, just not for people.
@ J Russel Wagner
Yeah we’re considering that possibility. Did you know that in China they abandon their girl children to die? 
O:O:O:O:O:O:O:O:O:O:O
I’m sorry; I assumed that determining how things would be done in this Utopian society would be part of its theoretical exploration. Silly me for thinking that “can” must come before “should”.
Could you elaborate on this example? It comes off as a short sighted and megolomaniacal plan. For one- why would you have to force people to use a better agricultural process that they didn’t know about? Why wouldn’t they simply choose the superior agricultural practice voluntarily after you presented it to them?
Do you really think people don’t have their own self-interests at heart?
@ J Russell Wagner
Well if something is theoretically possible, then you CAN do it.
You’re just saying that it is very very very difficult to overcome the calculation problem. It’s not impossible, as we already established with the agrarian economy concession.
Other people bring up the “should”… idk why…
As defined by who? If you don’t earn enough to pay your own way, aren’t you a frivolous thing, like a domesticated housepet?
Ah yes, nurture trumping nature. When man stops acting in his self-interest, then we’ll have chaos utopia. [8-)]
That’s been the magic bullet for socialism for hundreds of years.
People already do this in the free market. They work to make good trades, not bad trades. Supporting people who cannot support themselves is a bad trade. Sure, there is pity, compassion and charity, but I would just as much hire a man to work, and get some production from him, then feed and shelter him indefinitely.
Did the russian, cuban, etc, governments try ‘real’ communism , or something else ?
You just contradicted yourself.
Entrepreneurs are able to satisfy people in the market by voluntary means, and by successfully managing their own capital efficiently.
Government satisfy one group at the expense of another, by involuntary means, and consume capital inefficiently.
That makes your statement fallacious.
Sure. I can also make it so everyone works like slaves to build my pyramid. And your point is?
Don’t you think you can attribute that to China’s policy on how many kids parent’s are able to have?
Is there a reason you have two accounts here and you switched accounts?
That’s sorta the modus operandi for a troll.
How’s it going to calculate, pray tell? Communism doesn’t work, period. It’s stupid in theory and murderous in practice. Get over it. The whole “Oh noes, people are greedy, so our wondrous little theory cannot work with these cretins!” doesn’t cut it for me.
Is this a joke conversation?
The economic argument is that the rich man’s purchase of a sports car provides more food for “everyone” than whatever other way you have in mind (dirigism).
It astonishes me how people can make statements like: “Communism is food for everyone”. In that case, I am a communist too.
If I started a thread that said “FASCISM TOTALLY RULEZ, CAPITALISM IS FOR NOOBS!!!” would i get 70 responses in less than 2 hours?
No, you still need to prove why the calculation problem, even though it does not directly apply here, would be solved for an agrarian communist state - to prove how the state would have the knowledge to coordinate such an undertaking. Merely saying that the government would provide enough food, and water for its citizens isn’t an argument, it is something that you should be proving.
No, it is impossible, period.
Fairness, by its definition requires an arbiter to define what is fair. There is no such thing as objective fairness, and ergo the entire concept is subject to the whims of the arbiter.
None has the right to tell you what or how much you can eat… thats the difference between help and domination.
They should receive a lot of shit for an ideology that has continually failed (as well as it’s variants which share foundations of comunism) throughout the 20th century, based on the argument of “oh, we haven’t had a pure communist society yet!”. And before you troll back with that argument applying for free-markets & the US, the USA started out, at best, as a minarchy, so a stateless-society with a free-market has never existed in the USA or in recent modern history.
However, there are medieval examples such as Iceland and Ancient Ireland that provide counter-examples (you’ll have to google this since I have no sympathy for someone who apparently has multiple accounts & possibly playing puppets on the forum).
If you can dig up ancient examples of a communist society, by all means post them.
Minus the communist’s endorsement of the very collectivism that helps provide an ample voting bloc / support / herd for vanguards to continually hijack their own movements, which to my knowledge, has more or less happened in every real world application of communism.
Personally, I think communists are just trying to pour gasoline on the fire & then trying to control which way the flames burn (fire being government or the state).
Additionally, on the chance you are not a complete troll, I suggest you read Todd May’s “The Failure of Marxism” ( forum note: sorry about yet another reference to “Political Philosophy of Post-Structrualist Anarchism”, but I hate referring to things I haven’t read or finished) for a rather nice historical look on why communism failed & will continue to fail.
You misunderstand. I don’t care if a government “fails”. After all, what does that mean? IS it GOOD that ANY government does NOT fail-- for the moment? No, it’s irrelevant. Why? Consider the above. You assert that people have the “right to eat”. However, it’s logically possible that the most competent government possible could still be powerless to stop a famine. Does this mean that Mother Nature is violating people’s rights, because there is no food?
You have this backwards because your assuming that rights have to be facilitated positively. They don’t. No one has the right to take away YOUR food. IOW, your property. That’s how it works, and that’s how it HAS to work, because the universe doesn’t owe you anything. Mother nature doesn’t owe you food, anymore than she owes you an education. You don’t have the right TO an education, rather, what everyone else does NOT have is the right to PREVENT you from getting an education. I can’t stop you from reading a book. (at least not legitimately).
Coercion doesn’t necessarily make things better, and “better” doesn’t necessarily fallow from leaders NOT being retarded, or malevolent. Hypothetically, It could be an accident. This is why rights have to be negative, IMHO. The obligations can’t be guaranteed. If it’s otherwise, charge the universe with child neglect.
The simplest, most moral, and least economically destructive solution to the problem of a starving orphan vs a rich kid getting a new car is that YOU feed the orphan because you WANT to, and you leave other people alone.
Oh no, that would require far too much responsibility; so you see, The State must step in so it’s enablers can feel better about themselves.
I wonder when at one point, the “division of labor” mutated into “Not My Job? Not My Fault.”. A little cynical of me, but I digress, it’s hard not to be.
I don’t know. Is it cynical or realistic?
I wrote a short paragraph about how an increasing division of labour probably makes charity less inelastic a decision for individuals-- either way, and how this draws a red line under the fact that we as a civilization are in a better position than ever to “care for each other” in a free market than before, but I hit the wrong button, and the browser didn’t cache my text. So screw it.
I’m no economist, so some one here is probably going to make that point anyway, and probably better.
So how do you deal with shortages and surpluses, if there is no market?