What, specifically, about Communism is easier to take advantage of with greed and corruption than Capitalism? Why can’t these issues be cleared up with policy changes, and are structural to Communism?
Why does Anarchism having more forms detract from its validity?
Hayek’s classic The Road to Serfdom covered it pretty comprehensively: The structural issue with communism is that it is a command economy, and central planning cannot work because the planners always have imperfect information. That may result simply from the impracticality of nation-scale information gathering, or deliberate misinformation from ambitious bureaucrats trying to distinguish themselves by juicing their numbers. In computer terms, capitalism is a massively-distributed system in which the economy is directed by the interactions of all economic agents at the network edge, rather than centralized in one, huge server.
So, as far as greed and corruption go, just like in the computer analogy, I think it’s far easier for individual agents engage in it given an ideal free-market capitalist system(*), but the consequences tend to be localized and contained. In a communist system, it’s very difficult for any arbitrary individual in society to engage in corruption and greed, but for the well-connected party insiders do it, the consequences can be dire, and intractable.
(*) I say ideal capitalist system, because the fatal flaw of capitalism is a mathematical one: The math shows that even with a starting condition of equal opportunity and conditions for all people, a few people end up with most of the wealth (and therefore power) just by pure, random chance.
Hayek was debunked even by Capitalists, that’s why the Austrian school is largely abandoned even among liberals. His ECP has several issues, of which I’ll elaborate on a few.
Hayek assumes a lack of incentives within Socialism/Communism. Even learning the basics of Socialism and Communism can debunk this, but Hayek makes it core to his arguments.
Hayek ties all sources of “rational economic decision making” to price signals, ie profit vs loss. This is similarly incorrect, you can have a demanded service without profit. Some examples include single payer Healthcare, high speed rail, and other free at point of service programs.
Hayek pretends command economies are functionally entirely different from market economies, which is also false. Amazon is entirely internally planned, and often relies on computer automation for planning. A Socialist system would have worker ownership of a larger Amazon.
Largely, you run into issues with corruption when people aren’t accountable. The issue is, in Capitalism, Capitalists are far less accountable than people in a Socialist system might be, as there’s a level of democratic control inherently within Socialism that is lacking in Capitalism.
So, just so we’re clear, Communism doesn’t work, because it hasn’t been successful.
But Capitalism does work, even though it hasn’t been successful.
We do have Socialist nations and they are doing better than everyone else, with the highest happiness rates, and most of the necessities covered. But to answer your question, we have no successful countries at all. The closest we have are Socialist nations.
Answer my question first. Until then, I’ll ask another: which Capitalist nations can be considered successful, happy, with all basic necessities covered? Not even the Nordic Countries do that, and they still brutally exploit the global south.
Do you think it’s because they are Capitalist, or do you think it’s because they’re developed, and started industrializing earlier, with plentiful access to global trade?
It absolutely matters. If you’re tying development to quality of life, which I agree with, you also have to make the absolute claim that Socialist states can’t develop, which I disagree with. Capitalism is only a few hundred years old anyways, and already is failing, ie disparity is continuing to accelerate to unsustainable levels.
First of all, what is a “Communist state?” There’s no such thing, so if you clarify what you are referring to, that would help.
Secondly, clarify what you mean by “failed,” because either you don’t know much about leftist states or you’re using a different meaning of the word “failed.”
Finally, what do you mean “the idea sounds good on paper?” If it sounds good on paper, ie it works in theory, what about reality is an unknown factor? If humans can’t grasp it (whatever that means), then it doesn’t work in theory!
Communism is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society. It cannot be adopted by a state. You’re referring to Socialist states.
You clearly do have problems with Socialism, or at least some forms. Democratic Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, organized similar to a liberal democracy. That’s fine, but the goal of Democratic Socialism is still Communism, eventually.
You were not in fact referring to Communism, which is why I asked that question in the first place.
What, specifically, about Communism is easier to take advantage of with greed and corruption than Capitalism? Why can’t these issues be cleared up with policy changes, and are structural to Communism?
Why does Anarchism having more forms detract from its validity?
What, specifically, about Communism is easier to take advantage of with greed and corruption than Capitalism? Why can’t these issues be cleared up with policy changes, and are structural to Communism?
Why does Anarchism having more forms detract from its validity?
Hayek’s classic The Road to Serfdom covered it pretty comprehensively: The structural issue with communism is that it is a command economy, and central planning cannot work because the planners always have imperfect information. That may result simply from the impracticality of nation-scale information gathering, or deliberate misinformation from ambitious bureaucrats trying to distinguish themselves by juicing their numbers. In computer terms, capitalism is a massively-distributed system in which the economy is directed by the interactions of all economic agents at the network edge, rather than centralized in one, huge server.
So, as far as greed and corruption go, just like in the computer analogy, I think it’s far easier for individual agents engage in it given an ideal free-market capitalist system(*), but the consequences tend to be localized and contained. In a communist system, it’s very difficult for any arbitrary individual in society to engage in corruption and greed, but for the well-connected party insiders do it, the consequences can be dire, and intractable.
(*) I say ideal capitalist system, because the fatal flaw of capitalism is a mathematical one: The math shows that even with a starting condition of equal opportunity and conditions for all people, a few people end up with most of the wealth (and therefore power) just by pure, random chance.
Hayek was debunked even by Capitalists, that’s why the Austrian school is largely abandoned even among liberals. His ECP has several issues, of which I’ll elaborate on a few.
Hayek assumes a lack of incentives within Socialism/Communism. Even learning the basics of Socialism and Communism can debunk this, but Hayek makes it core to his arguments.
Hayek ties all sources of “rational economic decision making” to price signals, ie profit vs loss. This is similarly incorrect, you can have a demanded service without profit. Some examples include single payer Healthcare, high speed rail, and other free at point of service programs.
Hayek pretends command economies are functionally entirely different from market economies, which is also false. Amazon is entirely internally planned, and often relies on computer automation for planning. A Socialist system would have worker ownership of a larger Amazon.
Largely, you run into issues with corruption when people aren’t accountable. The issue is, in Capitalism, Capitalists are far less accountable than people in a Socialist system might be, as there’s a level of democratic control inherently within Socialism that is lacking in Capitalism.
Bro. Show me a successful communist nation in which its citizen are happy and with all its basic necessities covered.
Name me a country where this happens.
Good point. In that case, show me a successful communist nation.
So, just so we’re clear, Communism doesn’t work, because it hasn’t been successful.
But Capitalism does work, even though it hasn’t been successful.
We do have Socialist nations and they are doing better than everyone else, with the highest happiness rates, and most of the necessities covered. But to answer your question, we have no successful countries at all. The closest we have are Socialist nations.
Answer my question first. Until then, I’ll ask another: which Capitalist nations can be considered successful, happy, with all basic necessities covered? Not even the Nordic Countries do that, and they still brutally exploit the global south.
I don’t know, man… most developed nations are having quite a nice ride compared to the so-called communist countries.
Do you think it’s because they are Capitalist, or do you think it’s because they’re developed, and started industrializing earlier, with plentiful access to global trade?
Does this matter? Every communist state I’ve known has failed.
The idea may sound good in principle, but clearly humans can’t grasp it.
It absolutely matters. If you’re tying development to quality of life, which I agree with, you also have to make the absolute claim that Socialist states can’t develop, which I disagree with. Capitalism is only a few hundred years old anyways, and already is failing, ie disparity is continuing to accelerate to unsustainable levels.
First of all, what is a “Communist state?” There’s no such thing, so if you clarify what you are referring to, that would help.
Secondly, clarify what you mean by “failed,” because either you don’t know much about leftist states or you’re using a different meaning of the word “failed.”
Finally, what do you mean “the idea sounds good on paper?” If it sounds good on paper, ie it works in theory, what about reality is an unknown factor? If humans can’t grasp it (whatever that means), then it doesn’t work in theory!
You’re playing red scare bingo, lol
A communist state is just that. A nation that adopted communism.
I never mentioned socialism. I think socialism is okay. Or at least democratic socialism.
I was referring to communism.
Communism is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society. It cannot be adopted by a state. You’re referring to Socialist states.
You clearly do have problems with Socialism, or at least some forms. Democratic Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, organized similar to a liberal democracy. That’s fine, but the goal of Democratic Socialism is still Communism, eventually.
You were not in fact referring to Communism, which is why I asked that question in the first place.
Show me happy people.
What, specifically, about Communism is easier to take advantage of with greed and corruption than Capitalism? Why can’t these issues be cleared up with policy changes, and are structural to Communism?
Why does Anarchism having more forms detract from its validity?