Is Capitalism still the answer?

[Ardoki]

What on earth are you talking about. Do you even know what communism is?

1. When Gorbachev tried to reform the economy it did start moving again but by that time the people were so dissillusioned with communism that they overthrew it.

2. Corruption made everyone equally broke. except the government. They were wealthy.

3. Planned economies mean extreme inefficiencies. Yes Jim would have to do those things.

1. Gorbachev was the one who ruined the economy and made it worse with his policies. plus the USSR was state-capitalist.

2. In communism the people would be the government, not some bureaucratic elite like in state-capitalist countries.

3. A communist society does not imply a Soviet type planned economy. Jim would not have those problems in a communist society because they wouldn't exist.

[North Yakistan]

Jim would be corrupt because he wants to achieve more.
Also, utopic ideas again. Think realistic.

Why would he want to achieve more, he does not need to achieve more. He has everything he needs and his wants are satisfied.
It would not be possible for him to exploit the system nor does he have a reason to do it. If he contributes he shall receive everything he needs as well as his wants. Plus why would the non-existant officials help him even if they existed.

So if Jim wants a corvette and a flat screen TV and a vacation home in the Bahamsas and a collection of vintage motorcycles they are all his for the taking? Basicly what your saying is the world will be a paradise where we all get whatever we want?

By the gods they have you fooled. That isn't possible!

SCARCITY!

[Lithuanian Empire]

Jim would be corrupt because he wants to achieve more.
Also, utopic ideas again. Think realistic.

Why would he want to achieve more, he does not need to achieve more. He has everything he needs and his wants are satisfied.
It would not be possible for him to exploit the system nor does he have a reason to do it. If he contributes he shall receive everything he needs as well as his wants. Plus why would the non-existant officials help him even if they existed.

Looking at your words, if such system existed, it would be bankrupt almost instantly. When everyone gets what they want, the society has a hard time to fulfill all of it, especially with ineffective industry, as there is no control, competition or need to grow.
To fulfill all the needs with it's horrible industry, it would require taking a lot of loans. And you know what that means?
Game over.

Communism ideals, and Marx, who created them, have no knowledge of the economy. They can't work.

[Lemanrussland]

1. When Gorbachev tried to reform the economy it did start moving again but by that time the people were so dissillusioned with communism that they overthrew it.

2. Corruption made everyone equally broke. except the government. They were wealthy.

3. Planned economies mean extreme inefficiencies. Yes Jim would have to do those things.

1. Gorbachev was the one who ruined the economy and made it worse with his policies. plus the USSR was state-capitalist.

2. In communism the people would be the government, not some bureaucratic elite like in state-capitalist countries.

3. A communist society does not imply a Soviet type planned economy. Jim would not have those problems in a communist society because they wouldn't exist.

Yes, and the years of stagnation under Brezhnev, the rampant corruption, the 1980s oil glut, or the huge size of the military-industrial complex had anything to do with the USSR's economic problems. It was all Gorbafool's fault.

[Ardoki]

Why would he want to achieve more, he does not need to achieve more. He has everything he needs and his wants are satisfied.
It would not be possible for him to exploit the system nor does he have a reason to do it. If he contributes he shall receive everything he needs as well as his wants. Plus why would the non-existant officials help him even if they existed.

So if Jim wants a corvette and a flat screen TV and a vacation home in the Bahamsas and a collection of vintage motorcycles they are all his for the taking? Basicly what your saying is the world will be a paradise where we all get whatever we want?

By the gods they have you fooled. That isn't possible!

SCARCITY!

I did say realistic wants.
Jim would definitely be able to receive a flat screen TV, if he wishes to live in the Bahamas he would be allowed to. However he is not allowed a warship.

[North Yakistan]

So if Jim wants a corvette and a flat screen TV and a vacation home in the Bahamsas and a collection of vintage motorcycles they are all his for the taking? Basicly what your saying is the world will be a paradise where we all get whatever we want?

By the gods they have you fooled. That isn't possible!

SCARCITY!

I did say realistic wants.
Jim would definitely be able to receive a flat screen TV, if he wishes to live in the Bahamas he would be allowed to. However he is not allowed a warship.

So who decides what is reasonable and what is not?

Edit: all available land in the Bahamas is used, now what?

[Ardoki]

Why would he want to achieve more, he does not need to achieve more. He has everything he needs and his wants are satisfied.
It would not be possible for him to exploit the system nor does he have a reason to do it. If he contributes he shall receive everything he needs as well as his wants. Plus why would the non-existant officials help him even if they existed.

Looking at your words, if such system existed, it would be bankrupt almost instantly. When everyone gets what they want, the society has a hard time to fulfill all of it, especially with ineffective industry, as there is no control, competition or need to grow.
To fulfill all the needs with it's horrible industry, it would require taking a lot of loans. And you know what that means?
Game over.

Communism ideals, and Marx, who created them, have no knowledge of the economy. They can't work.

How can a moneyless system go bankrupt? Production would be for use, not for monetary gain.

[Ardoki]

I did say realistic wants.
Jim would definitely be able to receive a flat screen TV, if he wishes to live in the Bahamas he would be allowed to. However he is not allowed a warship.

So who decides what is reasonable and what is not?

For example a nuclear bomb, a unicorn, a planet, 10 000 dogs are not reasonable.

[North Yakistan]

Looking at your words, if such system existed, it would be bankrupt almost instantly. When everyone gets what they want, the society has a hard time to fulfill all of it, especially with ineffective industry, as there is no control, competition or need to grow.
To fulfill all the needs with it's horrible industry, it would require taking a lot of loans. And you know what that means?
Game over.

Communism ideals, and Marx, who created them, have no knowledge of the economy. They can't work.

How can a moneyless system go bankrupt? Production would be for use, not for monetary gain.

So people will just send things on down the line expecting to be sent things in return?

What happens if the loggers up in the mountains arnt getting enough food supplied to them and go on strike?

[Grykten]

1. When Gorbachev tried to reform the economy it did start moving again but by that time the people were so dissillusioned with communism that they overthrew it.

2. Corruption made everyone equally broke. except the government. They were wealthy.

3. Planned economies mean extreme inefficiencies. Yes Jim would have to do those things.

1. Gorbachev was the one who ruined the economy and made it worse with his policies. plus the USSR was state-capitalist.

2. In communism the people would be the government, not some bureaucratic elite like in state-capitalist countries.

3. A communist society does not imply a Soviet type planned economy. Jim would not have those problems in a communist society because they wouldn't exist.

3. I didn't say centrally planned. I meant any type of planning: centralized, lange-lerner, Decntralized, Worker Councils... They are inefficient.

[Lithuanian Empire]

1. When Gorbachev tried to reform the economy it did start moving again but by that time the people were so dissillusioned with communism that they overthrew it.

2. Corruption made everyone equally broke. except the government. They were wealthy.

3. Planned economies mean extreme inefficiencies. Yes Jim would have to do those things.

1. Gorbachev was the one who ruined the economy and made it worse with his policies. plus the USSR was state-capitalist.

2. In communism the people would be the government, not some bureaucratic elite like in state-capitalist countries.

3. A communist society does not imply a Soviet type planned economy. Jim would not have those problems in a communist society because they wouldn't exist.

1. The reasons for USSR's failure were built in the roots. Also, how can USSR be state capitalist if there were no capitalists?
2. Which would eventually develop into a dictatorship, because people unskilled inpolitics would leave the politics, leaving a small group to rule.
3. And how else would you make a communist society in realistic means?

[Lemanrussland]

Looking at your words, if such system existed, it would be bankrupt almost instantly. When everyone gets what they want, the society has a hard time to fulfill all of it, especially with ineffective industry, as there is no control, competition or need to grow.
To fulfill all the needs with it's horrible industry, it would require taking a lot of loans. And you know what that means?
Game over.

Communism ideals, and Marx, who created them, have no knowledge of the economy. They can't work.

How can a moneyless system go bankrupt? Production would be for use, not for monetary gain.

What he is saying is, "demand would outstrip production by far". Not that they would run out of cash.

The only point of money is to facilitate the exchange of real goods and services anyway.

[Ardoki]

How can a moneyless system go bankrupt? Production would be for use, not for monetary gain.

So people will just send things on down the line expecting to be sent things in return?

What happens if the loggers up in the mountains arnt getting enough food supplied to them and go on strike?

We would not use lines, we would use vehicles for transportation.

The loggers can get some food from the nearest supply depot or order some which will be sent to them.

[Lithuanian Empire]

Looking at your words, if such system existed, it would be bankrupt almost instantly. When everyone gets what they want, the society has a hard time to fulfill all of it, especially with ineffective industry, as there is no control, competition or need to grow.
To fulfill all the needs with it's horrible industry, it would require taking a lot of loans. And you know what that means?
Game over.

Communism ideals, and Marx, who created them, have no knowledge of the economy. They can't work.

How can a moneyless system go bankrupt? Production would be for use, not for monetary gain.

It can, if it cannot repay it's loans. Loans are not always money.
Also, a communist utopia would take loans from other countries, who are capitalist.

[Grykten]

1. When Gorbachev tried to reform the economy it did start moving again but by that time the people were so dissillusioned with communism that they overthrew it.

2. Corruption made everyone equally broke. except the government. They were wealthy.

3. Planned economies mean extreme inefficiencies. Yes Jim would have to do those things.

1. Gorbachev was the one who ruined the economy and made it worse with his policies. plus the USSR was state-capitalist.

2. In communism the people would be the government, not some bureaucratic elite like in state-capitalist countries.

3. A communist society does not imply a Soviet type planned economy. Jim would not have those problems in a communist society because they wouldn't exist.

3. I didn't say centrally planned. I meant any type of planning: centralized, lange-lerner, Decntralized, Worker Councils... They are inefficient.

[Ardoki]

How can a moneyless system go bankrupt? Production would be for use, not for monetary gain.

What he is saying is, "demand would outstrip production by far". Not that they would run out of cash.

The only point of money is to facilitate the exchange of real goods and services anyway.

Everyone’s needs will be satisfied first (this is actually easily achievable today), after the needs have been achieved wants will then be achieved.

[North Yakistan]

So people will just send things on down the line expecting to be sent things in return?

What happens if the loggers up in the mountains arnt getting enough food supplied to them and go on strike?

We would not use lines, we would use vehicles for transportation.

The loggers can get some food from the nearest supply depot or order some which will be sent to them.

"Line" is phrase.

And the depot is out. Flooding has ruined this years harvest and food is in short supply.

[Ardoki]

1. Gorbachev was the one who ruined the economy and made it worse with his policies. plus the USSR was state-capitalist.

2. In communism the people would be the government, not some bureaucratic elite like in state-capitalist countries.

3. A communist society does not imply a Soviet type planned economy. Jim would not have those problems in a communist society because they wouldn't exist.

3. I didn't say centrally planned. I meant any type of planning: centralized, lange-lerner, Decntralized, Worker Councils... They are inefficient.

Wrong the Anarcho-communist societies in Spain were not inefficient at all, in fact they were more efficient than ever.

[Grenartia]

An anti-corruption committee. I have never said that corruption will be non-existent, corruption happens under capitalism as well. However corruption would not be a big problem, nor a little one.

So now we are making broad assumptions.

How do to know there will be no corruption on the anti corruption council? Jim os paying off the investigator with croscants.

Same ways we figure out who's corrupt now.

The vast majority of people would like ti since it would maximise their personal and economic freedoms and lead to a much higher living standard and life.

Not really. People are not stupid.
Also, economic freedom is free market, and personal freedom already exists.

If you want such a society, it does not mean everyone does.

No, economic freedom is the freed market.

I said state-capitalism. I agree that they weren't capitalists, state-capitalism is not capitalism, however it shares some similarities (the upper exploiting classes and the exploited working classes) with capitalism.

No because the voluntary trade of labor for wages is not exploitive. The worker wants his wages more than his labor and vice versa for the employer.

How naive.

Doesn't mean they weren't state capitalists.

I'm not advicating state capitolism I'm advocating free markets and individual sovereignty.

And I'm advocating FREED markets and true individual sovereignty and freedom.

Capitalism is the better system, in my opinion.

The free price system is a much more efficient organizational mechanism than central planning. While markets are not perfect (far from it), market failures can be addressed through regulation, and social inequities can be addressed via social policy.

As far as worker-cooperatives are concerned, these can easily exist in a market system. There are at least 400 such businesses in operation in the United States, and upwards of 11,000 if you count ESOPs (employee stock ownership plans, where workers own part or all of the company).

Workplace democracy never materialized in most communist nations which used central planning, instead the economy was controlled by the state bureaucracy.

State ownership of the means of production is neither communist nor socialist. And in fact, there are forms of socialism that embrace the market, which capitalism doesn't have a monopoly on.

[Ostroeuropa]

It keeps free markets and all that.
Theres a method of doing it that I prefer, which is basically that anyone who works for a corporation gets 1 share of stock to vote with. No non-workers may vote with stock.
Wages would be abolished, instead, every worker gets a share of the corporate profits determined by the collective.
(The current progenitor is the Mondragon corporation, which uses:

Unskilled labour - 1 share
Skilled Labour - 3 shares
Management - 5 shares
Upper Management 7 shares)

System.
thus, upper management will only EVER receive 7 times the pay of the lowest paid work, and that pay is ENTIRELY dependent on how well the corporation functions.
If profits go up, everyones wages go up. If profit goes down, everyones wages go down.

This model makes firing people (for reasons other than incompetence or bad behaviour) obsolete. We no longer have to fire people because times are tough. People will willingly leave when their pay goes down. (Too many workers sharing not enough profit. Those willing to leave will do so. If noone wants to leave, then there is no problem.)

Imagine it as basically a form of socialist-corporation.
It means you can entirely scrap things like workplace-health acts, since the workers of the company are going to vote for healthier working conditions anyway.
And if they dont vote for them, who are we to say otherwise? They know the risks best.
The importance of the vote is that it allows workers to fire incompetent managers by voting them out, which can be vital. Ofcourse, it is NEVER in their interest to fire an actually competent manager. Doing so would hurt their incomes.
It also means that every worker has a vested interest in the corporation doing well. If it does well, they get more cash.
It minimizes laziness. Every worker knows they get a share of the profit, so why laze?

What about that then ^.
That's an alternative.

[Ardoki]

We would not use lines, we would use vehicles for transportation.

The loggers can get some food from the nearest supply depot or order some which will be sent to them.

"Line" is phrase.

And the depot is out. Flooding has ruined this years harvest and food is in short supply.

Their needs will try to be met. It is not as if this kind of stuff does not happen under capitalism, plus this scenario is very unlikely.

[North Yakistan]

3. I didn't say centrally planned. I meant any type of planning: centralized, lange-lerner, Decntralized, Worker Councils... They are inefficient.

Wrong the Anarcho-communist societies in Spain were not inefficient at all, in fact they were more efficient than ever.

That's debatable

[Lithuanian Empire]

What he is saying is, "demand would outstrip production by far". Not that they would run out of cash.

The only point of money is to facilitate the exchange of real goods and services anyway.

Everyone’s needs will be satisfied first (this is actually easily achievable today), after the needs have been achieved wants will then be achieved.

A communist economy would not be able to satisfy everyone's needs.
Even capitalism cannot do it - that's why trade exists.

[Grykten]

3. I didn't say centrally planned. I meant any type of planning: centralized, lange-lerner, Decntralized, Worker Councils... They are inefficient.

Wrong the Anarcho-communist societies in Spain were not inefficient at all, in fact they were more efficient than ever.

For basic neccessities and for a short period of time yes. For large scale production and multiple decades it could have bogged down.

A NOTE: As far as communist societies go, spain's model was by far the most desirable.

[North Yakistan]

"Line" is phrase.

And the depot is out. Flooding has ruined this years harvest and food is in short supply.

Their needs will try to be met. It is not as if this kind of stuff does not happen under capitalism, plus this scenario is very unlikely.

It's not unlikely at all, I grew up in a farming region and still live in one. Crops can fail any given year because of disease, weather, or a my raid of other factors.

And capitolism has a built in mechanism for this, supply and demand.