Communism: Persuade Me

[The Southron Nation]

I was avoiding the thread actually. It gets rather exhausting to read and re-read the same tired rehashed wealth envy coming from the self righteous amoralist. Every time I read anything about communism and it's awesomesauce, I just want to jet over to the first Soviet Surplus website and purchase all the crap I can.

*note, I am Distruzio. Sorry, this is my anarchist nation/neo-confederate nation*

[Sibirsky]

We have oil subsidies and gas taxes.

That's $8.67/gallon. Ouch. And we're bitching about $4/gallon gas. That's expensive for us. 2 years ago it was under $2.50. I remember getting gas for $0.87 once. Back in 1999.

just out of interest, how much is car tax for my age there. 17 year old male. It can cost people our age up to £2500 here

What is the car tax? We have sales taxes, and personal property taxes on cars, but they are not dependent on age and gender of the owner and vary from state to state.

[Narikania]

I like the ideals of Communism, Of equality.
I am just unsure if it can last through corruption.
Humans tend to want the best for themselves in general.

Also USSR/communist Music = <3
L'internationale for an example : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB5x6cDMjao
Or Die Einheitsfront : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBaZmMfBZ0w
Music inspired by people who share ideals of being equal...No rich or poor, Just people.

[Grave_n_idle]

I wasn't saying one individual firm or family is better at planning than any individual government, but that millions of firms and millions of households are more efficient and making the millions of economic decisions required every minute to retain our standards of living, than one central hub of technocrats...

And I showed why that's not true. Americans waste a ridiculous amount of produce. Not just 'an American', but Americans collectively. Similarly, the American food commerce industry similarly wastes a prodigious amount. Not just one food company, one restaurant - but collectively.

This 'capitalist' economy is more efficient than pure chaos, perhaps - but it is not an efficient system.

[Grave_n_idle]

While that might have been true for large interconnected groups, in the past - it's never been true for small groups, and it's no longer true for large groups. Technology has finally reached a level where efficient resource distribution is entirely possible.

If you've nothing to say, feel free to not say it.

[Grave_n_idle]

That's great and all. The question was, how does the central planning authority decide which resources, and how much of them, to allocate to whom?

The answer is, without prices it's not going to be efficient.

The USSR was an example of central planning failure. While there was enough food produced for everyone, not everyone got the food they wanted. Even though transportation was in place to deliver that food.

Im pretty sure that a lot of people didn't get any food at all...like in Ukraine and many other places.

Which would have been totally different if they had to buy their food, and had no money.

Oh, wait.

[Grave_n_idle]

While that might have been true for large interconnected groups, in the past - it's never been true for small groups, and it's no longer true for large groups. Technology has finally reached a level where efficient resource distribution is entirely possible.

Not true, market distribution is just as much more efficient than central planning in small groups as well as it is in large, it's simply less necessary as the weaknesses of central planning are less obvious. Consider the end of a childhood Halloween trick or treating, you and your friends would or at least in my case we did, set about all of our candy at the end of the night, and trade it with each other. Despite being only about five participants it's clear that this is a much more efficient and fair system then if we simply gave them all to one central authority (let's call it MOM) and she provided us with exactly with exactly equal shares of all the candy subject to the pull of our whinging for more Butterfingers than Jimmy because we love Butterfingers.

Not sure what point you're trying to make, but the central authority is actually more efficient in your example...

[Bluth Corporation]

I wasn't saying one individual firm or family is better at planning than any individual government, but that millions of firms and millions of households are more efficient and making the millions of economic decisions required every minute to retain our standards of living, than one central hub of technocrats...

And I showed why that's not true. Americans waste a ridiculous amount of produce. Not just 'an American', but Americans collectively. Similarly, the American food commerce industry similarly wastes a prodigious amount. Not just one food company, one restaurant - but collectively.

That there is a great deal of waste in the current system does not necessarily mean that there will be less waste in a centrally-planned system. This is an assumption you're making that has not been demonstrated to be true.

And it does nothing to address the infinitely more important issue of whether or not there is any moral justification for central planning. Practical concerns are irrelevant if something is immoral. Practical concerns only become relevant when choosing between two or more equally morally-justifiable alternatives.

[Grave_n_idle]

And I showed why that's not true. Americans waste a ridiculous amount of produce. Not just 'an American', but Americans collectively. Similarly, the American food commerce industry similarly wastes a prodigious amount. Not just one food company, one restaurant - but collectively.

That there is a great deal of waste in the current system does not necessarily mean that there will be less waste in a centrally-planned system.

No, but it does put paid to the idea that the current model is inherently and intrinsically efficient.

[Bluth Corporation]

Not true, market distribution is just as much more efficient than central planning in small groups as well as it is in large, it's simply less necessary as the weaknesses of central planning are less obvious. Consider the end of a childhood Halloween trick or treating, you and your friends would or at least in my case we did, set about all of our candy at the end of the night, and trade it with each other. Despite being only about five participants it's clear that this is a much more efficient and fair system then if we simply gave them all to one central authority (let's call it MOM) and she provided us with exactly with exactly equal shares of all the candy subject to the pull of our whinging for more Butterfingers than Jimmy because we love Butterfingers.

Not sure what point you're trying to make, but the central authority is actually more efficient in your example...

Why? When Mom sorts it all out, she probably doesn't know what each person prefers and to what extent as well as the individuals actually involved know what they themselves prefer and are willing to give up for it.

[Bluth Corporation]

That there is a great deal of waste in the current system does not necessarily mean that there will be less waste in a centrally-planned system.

No, but it does put paid to the idea that the current model is inherently and intrinsically efficient.

I don't think anyone's claiming it meets some arbitrary absolute binary standard of "efficiency," but rather that it is comparatively more efficient than other alternatives.

[Grave_n_idle]

Not sure what point you're trying to make, but the central authority is actually more efficient in your example...

Why? When Mom sorts it all out, she probably doesn't know what each person prefers and to what extent as well as the individuals actually involved know what they themselves prefer and are willing to give up for it.

No, but it would be quicker, involve less jockeying and false-starts and guarantee fairness. Also, the individual kids could then decide among themselves how much they were still willing to exchange their candy, but it the initial distribution would have been noticeably more 'efficient'.

[Grave_n_idle]

No, but it does put paid to the idea that the current model is inherently and intrinsically efficient.

I don't think anyone's claiming it meets some arbitrary absolute binary standard of "efficiency," but rather that it is comparatively more efficient than other alternatives.

No. The argument is that distribution under a communist model must be inefficient. Like that's an argument against it.

But the main problem in distribution has always been accurate and timely data - and that's no longer a concern. And it is worth pointing out that the argument being used against the model ALSO applies to it's competitors.

It's like a group of gingers kicking a ginger out of their gang for being ginger - it's a ridiculous argument.

[Bluth Corporation]

Why? When Mom sorts it all out, she probably doesn't know what each person prefers and to what extent as well as the individuals actually involved know what they themselves prefer and are willing to give up for it.

No, but it would be quicker, involve less jockeying and false-starts and guarantee fairness. Also, the individual kids could then decide among themselves how much they were still willing to exchange their candy, but it the initial distribution would have been noticeably more 'efficient'.

If they're going to trade among themselves in the end anyway, then you're just introducing an extra step to ultimately arrive at the same result.

But I'm not sure this is relevant to a discussion of communism. Most modern-day Marxists (those I'm familiar with, at least) do not adhere to a notion of strict, absolute central planning anyway.

[Grave_n_idle]

No, but it would be quicker, involve less jockeying and false-starts and guarantee fairness. Also, the individual kids could then decide among themselves how much they were still willing to exchange their candy, but it the initial distribution would have been noticeably more 'efficient'.

That sounds like introducing an extra step to ultimately arrive at the same result.

Not at all. The extra step is entirely voluntary, and only if everyone agrees.

In this Halloween candy example, central distribution is far more efficient than all the fannying around... which was the point I suspect it was supposed to argue against.

[Bluth Corporation]

That sounds like introducing an extra step to ultimately arrive at the same result.

Not at all. The extra step is entirely voluntary, and only if everyone agrees.

Hold on, hold on...before we continue, I want to make sure: Are we both referring to "Mom stepping in after they come in from the streets but before they divvy it up among themselves" as the extra step?

[Vetalia]

And I showed why that's not true. Americans waste a ridiculous amount of produce. Not just 'an American', but Americans collectively. Similarly, the American food commerce industry similarly wastes a prodigious amount. Not just one food company, one restaurant - but collectively.

This 'capitalist' economy is more efficient than pure chaos, perhaps - but it is not an efficient system.

A lot of that waste is either unavoidable or attributable to farm subsidies and price supports that result in massive overproduction. The difference is, though, that this waste is occurring by and large after it's delivered its economic benefit; that's not the same as in centrally planned economies where produce sometimes rotted in the fields (or even worse valuable catches of salmon or caviar) because the farms never received or didn't receive in time the order or from above to harvest the crops and deliver them.

[Hydesland]

Americans waste a ridiculous amount of produce. Not just 'an American', but Americans collectively. Similarly, the American food commerce industry similarly wastes a prodigious amount. Not just one food company, one restaurant - but collectively.

1) A huge oversupply of food is normally signs of high efficiency in other areas, in the sense that the food industry has such enormous productivity so as to be able to produce a huge oversupply of foodstuffs that exceeds demand. For the rest of the entire history of civilisation, the exact opposite has been true, demand has normally overwhelmingly exceeded supply in feudal economies, which is a much more serious form of inefficiency.

2) You have no evidence that this has anything to do with capitalism, given that there are:

a) ultra massive farm subsidies from the government enabling farmers to flood the market with super cheep foodstuffs without having to worry so much about matching demand, inevitably leading to an oversupply

b) a huge amount of laws/protectionist policies/tariffs/anti dumping initiatives in place preventing agricultural and food businesses from selling their surplus foodstuffs in developing countries where there is an undersupply. This is because -get this- developing countries are worried that the unfair advantage of American and European governmental subsidies in their food markets will crowd out their own farming businesses that don't rely on subsidies, leading to an underdeveloped and underproductive agricultural industry. Yep, developing countries and fair trade lobbyists are worried that governmental intervention and planning creates massive inefficiencies.

3) The majority of waste in economic systems is overwhelmingly opportunity loss, something intangible, resulting in countries producing far below capacity and not utilizing labor and capital to its potential. I'd take inefficiency in the form of oversupply rather than undersupply any day.

[The Merchant Republics]

Not true, market distribution is just as much more efficient than central planning in small groups as well as it is in large, it's simply less necessary as the weaknesses of central planning are less obvious. Consider the end of a childhood Halloween trick or treating, you and your friends would or at least in my case we did, set about all of our candy at the end of the night, and trade it with each other. Despite being only about five participants it's clear that this is a much more efficient and fair system then if we simply gave them all to one central authority (let's call it MOM) and she provided us with exactly with exactly equal shares of all the candy subject to the pull of our whinging for more Butterfingers than Jimmy because we love Butterfingers.

Not sure what point you're trying to make, but the central authority is actually more efficient in your example...

No. No it's not. Unless you consider equal distribution of goods to be the most efficient. Efficiency isn't about equality it's about utility.

In the first market solution every one will receive approximately the type of candy the want in the amount they want maximum utility. When it is centrally distributed there is no such guarantee unless you cheat i.e. as in my example appealing to MOM to steal from Jimmy's supply, the end result being less utility, less satisfied people.

[Terra Agora]

Communism: All must suffer in equal measure. Suffer in according to your need.
Capitalism: Rewarded in occurrence to ability, punished for every failure.
IE. All flounder under communism, i mean except the dictators and the leaders they end up filthy rich.
Capitalism works for around 40%. Good track record if you ask me.

I'd say it's far more than 40%. I'd say it's close to 100%. Even the poor in the capitalist west are better off.

Everyone is better off in a market economy.

[Distruzio]

Not true, market distribution is just as much more efficient than central planning in small groups as well as it is in large, it's simply less necessary as the weaknesses of central planning are less obvious. Consider the end of a childhood Halloween trick or treating, you and your friends would or at least in my case we did, set about all of our candy at the end of the night, and trade it with each other. Despite being only about five participants it's clear that this is a much more efficient and fair system then if we simply gave them all to one central authority (let's call it MOM) and she provided us with exactly with exactly equal shares of all the candy subject to the pull of our whinging for more Butterfingers than Jimmy because we love Butterfingers.

Not sure what point you're trying to make, but the central authority is actually more efficient in your example...

No it isn't. In his example, the parent is there to remind the children to respect property rights. That is to say, the parent keeps the children from stealing from one another. Which is the exact function gov't is supposed to fulfill. What MR is saying is that he and his childhood friends would voluntarily cooperate, the result of which would be complete satisfaction for everyone. MR's example was dead on.... You simply fail to comprehend what you read.

[Sibirsky]

Distruzio, this is a bit overdue, but welcome to NSG. We appreciate your input. Keep up the good work.

[Basarab-Musat]

Many people just forget about the 20 million dead ukrainians. Only good part about communism is that it killed less people than islam.

[Lerro]

That sounds like introducing an extra step to ultimately arrive at the same result.

Not at all. The extra step is entirely voluntary, and only if everyone agrees.

In this Halloween candy example, central distribution is far more efficient than all the fannying around... which was the point I suspect it was supposed to argue against.

Now imagine that the candy was food and we're in Mao's China. How goes collectivism then?

[Distruzio]

Distruzio, this is a bit overdue, but welcome to NSG. We appreciate your input. Keep up the good work.