Anti Capitalist Discussion Thread I: Seize the toothbrushes!

[Soritarius]

... You don't have any idea what Communism, Socialism, or Anarchism actually are, do you?

I certainly do and in practice there is the party and everyone else, where the party gets the best and everyone else gets the worst. Communism historically does very poorly with distribution of goods. So does socialism. No current economic system deals properly with automation and theories of abundance in a way that guarantees the best results for the population as a whole. Anarchism, capitalism, socialism, communism rehash ideas based on conditions that no longer exist.

t. never read any leftist theory

[Torrocca]

... You don't have any idea what Communism, Socialism, or Anarchism actually are, do you?

I certainly do and in practice there is the party and everyone else, where the party gets the best and everyone else gets the worst. Communism historically does very poorly with distribution of goods. So does socialism. No current economic system deals properly with automation and theories of abundance in a way that guarantees the best results for the population as a whole. Anarchism, capitalism, socialism, communism rehash ideas based on conditions that no longer exist.

Mate, you ought to read up on Anarchist, Communist, Socialist, and other Leftist theories before spouting nonsense. It'd do you better when debating it.

[36 Camera Perspective]

Short of nuclear weapons, socialism is the best way to destroy the economic and political life of a nation.

[Orostan]

Short of nuclear weapons, socialism is the best way to destroy the economic and political life of a nation.

nob an argumenb xxxxddddd

[UniversalCommons]

Tell me, if 47% of jobs are replaceable in the next decade with automation and this number will increase in the coming years, why is that not discussed as a major economic issue. It can't be solved with the standard models. Socialism does not have answer for when capital replaces labor which is happening right now. In the socialist system and communist system labor is supposed to replace capital, but it is not what is happening in the world. The opposite is happening. The way things are going, there will be far fewer workers, just like there are far fewer farmers. Only a small amount of workers will be needed to produce all the goods and services, just like only a few farmers grow food in the industrialized countries. There will not be enough workers to have a workers state... What emerges will be different.

[36 Camera Perspective]

Short of nuclear weapons, socialism is the best way to destroy the economic and political life of a nation.

nob an argumenb xxxxddddd

Of course it wasn't an argument! I was just trying to bait somebody into a debate. But alas, we already have one.

But if you want an argument, I've got the socialist calculation problem, the problem of the rule of law under central planning, the danger that central planning poses to individual freedom, the problem of different factions vying for control over the plan in order to shape it in their favor, and the problem of individual projects.

[Cedoria]

nob an argumenb xxxxddddd

Of course it wasn't an argument! I was just trying to bait somebody into a debate. But alas, we already have one.

But if you want an argument, I've got the socialist calculation problem, the problem of the rule of law under central planning, the danger that central planning poses to individual freedom, the problem of different factions vying for control over the plan in order to shape it in their favor, and the problem of individual projects.

Which are arguments against central planning, not necessarily other forms of planning, or other forms of non-capitalist production and distribution.

So you've missed about 90% of hard-left economic theory there.

[36 Camera Perspective]

Of course it wasn't an argument! I was just trying to bait somebody into a debate. But alas, we already have one.

But if you want an argument, I've got the socialist calculation problem, the problem of the rule of law under central planning, the danger that central planning poses to individual freedom, the problem of different factions vying for control over the plan in order to shape it in their favor, and the problem of individual projects.

Which are arguments against central planning, not necessarily other forms of planning, or other forms of non-capitalist production and distribution.

So you've missed about 90% of hard-left economic theory there.

The calculation problem applies to any system where there is no market for the means of production, which is probably far greater than 10% of "hard-left" economic theory, but otherwise yeah. But I can't be expected to account for every single flavor of an ideology that has as many variations as socialism in a single post.

[West Leas Oros]

But hierarchy exists to some degree as a result of the natural differences between different people. The only way one can really make everyone equal is through state intervention to reduce inequality. Thus, I would consider Left Anarchism an irrational and self-contradictory ideology. As for Anarcho-Capitalism, as completely immoral as their philosophy is, at least they are logically consistent in advocating pure individualism without any regard for equality.

Making everyone equal is a bit of a misunderstanding of leftist theory.
The whole state bit is where most people get it wrong.
Anarchism is against hierarchies.
Capitalism is a hierarchy.
Private property needs a state to be defended, not the other way around.
It's these things that make leftcoms more consistent that ancaps, which arguably aren't anarchists at all.

Honestly, I find that most anarchists Wished that their perfect stateless society was possible. Sure, I get it. You don't like hierarchies. But without the state, humans would be poking at ruins with sticks wearing animal furs and scalping people for entertainment. Besides, its simply impossible to not have any heirarchies in life.Literally everything is based on a hierarchy of some kind. You place a bunch of different humans in the same place with only limited resources? They break off and form tribes, factions, gangs, etc. You just can't survive without some form of government.

[Kubra]

Is the economic calculation problem what dropped the soviets

[36 Camera Perspective]

Is the economic calculation problem what dropped the soviets

Yep.

[Kubra]

Is the economic calculation problem what dropped the soviets

Yep.

Well, by all means, elaborate. What were the deficiencies in soviet monetary policy and its application to the price of capital goods, as well as its allocation? In what way did it affect communication of economic data between departments within soviet enterprise? What are, of course, the results of such deficiencies?

[36 Camera Perspective]

Yep.

Well, by all means, elaborate. What were the deficiencies in soviet monetary policy and its application to the price of capital goods, as well as its allocation? In what way did it affect communication of economic data between departments within soviet enterprise? What are, of course, the results of such deficiencies?

Nobody said anything about monetary policy.

[Kubra]

Well, by all means, elaborate. What were the deficiencies in soviet monetary policy and its application to the price of capital goods, as well as its allocation? In what way did it affect communication of economic data between departments within soviet enterprise? What are, of course, the results of such deficiencies?

Nobody said anything about monetary policy.

I should think it relevant, given that the calculation problem pertains greatly to the problem of an inefficient or non-function price mechanism. So, naturally, we would start from that price mechanism, yes? The ruble, a very odd sort of currency, and not altogether a particularly useful one, at least in terms of the macro scale. What made it so?

[36 Camera Perspective]

Nobody said anything about monetary policy.

I should think it relevant, given that the calculation problem pertains greatly to the problem of an inefficient or non-function price mechanism. So, naturally, we would start from that price mechanism, yes? The ruble, a very odd sort of currency, and not altogether a particularly useful one, at least in terms of the macro scale. What made it so?

Mises argued that there was no price mechanism for production goods because there would be no market for them. It's not really a matter of monetary policy; it wasn't about controlling the money supply.

[Kubra]

I should think it relevant, given that the calculation problem pertains greatly to the problem of an inefficient or non-function price mechanism. So, naturally, we would start from that price mechanism, yes? The ruble, a very odd sort of currency, and not altogether a particularly useful one, at least in terms of the macro scale. What made it so?

Mises argued that there was no price mechanism for production goods because there would be no market for them. It's not really a matter of monetary policy; it wasn't about controlling the money supply.

Sure there is. Factories and firms weren't always centrally provided their production goods, they often really did have to pay as any firm does: out of pocket. Usually, this would mean apply for a loan from gosbank and hoping you've got the political clout to receive it. The price of these goods, of course, are usually fixed by gosplan. Nonetheless, a factory manager has to make a choice between the goods he can purchase from his limited allocation of rubles, and gosplan would eventually respond to drops or increases in demand in their adjustment of price. Unlike consumer goods, it's not so politically sensitive to raise prices on lathes and coal and such. Of course, the value of the ruble could fluctuate, and this would reflect in the price changes by gosplan. The soviets often had problems where rubles in the form of gold and silver would be hoarded, stashed under mattresses, rather than saved in gosbank, in anticipation of shortages in their supply, or an increased outlay of paper money making the coins comparatively valuable. This problem was later "fixed" by attaching the value of the ruble to the value of gold, and then fixing the price of gold. It's not a "good" market, it's not what we might call responsive or a particularly efficient means of estimating relative value of production goods, but a market nonetheless.

[36 Camera Perspective]

Mises argued that there was no price mechanism for production goods because there would be no market for them. It's not really a matter of monetary policy; it wasn't about controlling the money supply.

Sure there is. Factories and firms weren't always centrally provided their production goods, they often really did have to pay as any firm does: out of pocket. Usually, this would mean apply for a loan from gosbank and hoping you've got the political clout to receive it. The price of these goods, of course, are usually fixed by gosplan. Nonetheless, a factory manager has to make a choice between the goods he can purchase from his limited allocation of rubles, and gosplan would eventually respond to drops or increases in demand in their adjustment of price. Unlike consumer goods, it's not so politically sensitive to raise prices on lathes and coal and such. Of course, the value of the ruble could fluctuate, and this would reflect in the price changes by gosplan. The soviets often had problems where rubles in the form of gold and silver would be hoarded, stashed under mattresses, rather than saved in gosbank, in anticipation of shortages in their supply, or an increased outlay of paper money making the coins comparatively valuable. This problem was later "fixed" by attaching the value of the ruble to the value of gold, and then fixing the price of gold. It's not a "good" market, it's not what we might call responsive or a particularly efficient means of estimating relative value of production goods, but a market nonetheless.

Isn't this just a less efficient version of capitalism?

[Kubra]

Sure there is. Factories and firms weren't always centrally provided their production goods, they often really did have to pay as any firm does: out of pocket. Usually, this would mean apply for a loan from gosbank and hoping you've got the political clout to receive it. The price of these goods, of course, are usually fixed by gosplan. Nonetheless, a factory manager has to make a choice between the goods he can purchase from his limited allocation of rubles, and gosplan would eventually respond to drops or increases in demand in their adjustment of price. Unlike consumer goods, it's not so politically sensitive to raise prices on lathes and coal and such. Of course, the value of the ruble could fluctuate, and this would reflect in the price changes by gosplan. The soviets often had problems where rubles in the form of gold and silver would be hoarded, stashed under mattresses, rather than saved in gosbank, in anticipation of shortages in their supply, or an increased outlay of paper money making the coins comparatively valuable. This problem was later "fixed" by attaching the value of the ruble to the value of gold, and then fixing the price of gold. It's not a "good" market, it's not what we might call responsive or a particularly efficient means of estimating relative value of production goods, but a market nonetheless.

Isn't this just a less efficient version of capitalism?

if a company we're to structure itself as such, we would not call it "less efficient capitalism". We'd be more apt to call it simply poor organization, wouldn't we? Comically poor, at that.

[The Grene Knyght]

Short of nuclear weapons, socialism is the best way to destroy the economic and political life of a nation.

Why not both?

[img]Posadas.PNG[/img]

[Soritarius]

Short of nuclear weapons, socialism is the best way to destroy the economic and political life of a nation.

Why not both?

[img]Posadas.PNG[/img]

We call that Socialism in one bunker

[The Grene Knyght]

Why not both?

[img]Posadas.PNG[/img]

We call that Socialism in one bunker

Why not 750,000 bunkers?

[img]Hoxha.PNG[/img]

[Orostan]

We call that Socialism in one bunker

Why not 750,000 bunkers?

[img]Hoxha.PNG[/img]

Why not a million bunkers?

[Chestaan]

Tell me, if 47% of jobs are replaceable in the next decade with automation and this number will increase in the coming years, why is that not discussed as a major economic issue. It can't be solved with the standard models. Socialism does not have answer for when capital replaces labor which is happening right now. In the socialist system and communist system labor is supposed to replace capital, but it is not what is happening in the world. The opposite is happening. The way things are going, there will be far fewer workers, just like there are far fewer farmers. Only a small amount of workers will be needed to produce all the goods and services, just like only a few farmers grow food in the industrialized countries. There will not be enough workers to have a workers state... What emerges will be different.

Isn't that exactly what Marx predicted? An ever-growing pool of unemployed labour leading to the inevitable proletarian revolt?

[Aramtal Urla Credets]

Best Ism is Minarchism.
Communists just ignore human nature so do primtivists
Socialism is a sham

[The Grene Knyght]

Best Ism is Minarchism.
Communists just ignore human nature so do primtivists
Socialism is a sham

Human nature? I've never heard of her.