Market Calculation under Socialism/Communism - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Workers of the world, unite! Then argue about Trotsky and Stalin for all eternity...
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13835906
TIG wrote:This is the only way capitalism can possibly work because it happened this way.

Capitalism is lucky, because it hadn't collapsed before it started to work another way. It's lucky, because it can work many ways, it's flexible, inventive, and has the ability to progress. On the other hand Socialism collapsed, because it was a rigid, bigoted system that was eradicated by evolution.

daft punk wrote:There has never been a socialist system

Of course not, even Lenin wasn't a true socialist himself. He was a soviet.
#13835929
Capitalism is lucky, because it hadn't collapsed before it started to work another way.


It collapsed in Scotland. The only reason the Lairds were able to keep things going was the outside intervention of the English. The English, themselves, had a restoration of feudalism after Cromwell.

It's lucky, because it can work many ways, it's flexible, inventive, and has the ability to progress. On the other hand Socialism collapsed, because it was a rigid, bigoted system that was eradicated by evolution.


This assumes socialism has existed.
#13835930
Of course not, even Lenin wasn't a true socialist himself. He was a soviet.


Is this retarded nonsense supposed to be clever or funny or something?
#13835968
TIG wrote:It collapsed in Scotland.

Well, it collapsed all around the world in 1929. In this case capitalism is even more lucky, because it was able to resurrect. By the way, it wasn't eradicated. So if socialism is able to resurrect after it collapsed and vanished, then it has a chance as well.

TIG wrote:This assumes socialism has existed.

Some sort of socialism, soviet socialism namely, has existed.

TIG wrote:The English, themselves, had a restoration of feudalism after Cromwell.

It rather was a restoration of the monarchy, wasn't it?

daft punk wrote:Is this retarded nonsense supposed to be clever or funny or something?

As you wish.
#13836258
Beren wrote:Some sort of socialism, soviet socialism namely, has existed.

No it hasnt. A soviet is a democratic workers committee or council, enabling direct grassroots workers democracy. Soviet democracy has existed, it's government based on work place democracy. But the democracy fizzled out in 1918. The main coalition partners, the Left SRs, walked out of government because the didnt agree with the peace deal with Germany. They then became enemy by trying to sabotage the peace deal. Many of their members joined the Bolsheviks. Similar story with other parties, and all the other parties supported the Whites and so in the end were banned. This is how a one party state evolved. After 1923 they should have implemented proper democracy, but Stalin got powerful after Lenin died and Trotsky was ill. The revolution was doomed to failure by it's isolation in a backward country. Stalin personified it's inevitable degeneration. The bureaucracy, inherited from the Tsar, took over, and Stalin went along with it. All this is easy to prove and I have done that on various threads, including quotes from Lenin. Lenin said Russia was nowhere near socialist in 1922 and in 1924 thing started to go backwards.
#13836345
There is only one thing or goal in mind for the capitalist: to create surplus value or undue profits. No matter how the the workers want all the best for the capitalist to improve his company, the capitalist does not care. We get fired if we commit a minor mistake. Workers are strictly forbidden to rest even for a second. Workers are not allowed to pee but only off-hours. Workers are not allowed to joke around or chat for a few seconds with his co-worker to lessen the stress. You don't find these in socialist paradise.
#13836717
Beren wrote:Well, it collapsed all around the world in 1929. In this case capitalism is even more lucky, because it was able to resurrect. By the way, it wasn't eradicated.


Capitalism did not collapse in 1929, as you yourself say when you say it wasn't eradicated.

Beren wrote:Some sort of socialism, soviet socialism namely, has existed.


Do we really need to have this discussion in every thread?.

Beren wrote:It rather was a restoration of the monarchy, wasn't it?


Cromwell was as much capitalism as the Soviet Union was socialism. There was a restoration of the crown in one, and restoration of parliamentarian struggle in another.
#13836811
You guys miss the point of economic calculation. It's about defining the costs of resources, methods, skills, and supply of jobs, and summing them up for a total product. Should you use expensive ore A that lasts a long time, or cheap ore B that requires washing with soap 1 and delays production by 2? It's about pricing apples and oranges so that you can have a means to compare them. How much is a scientist really worth, or his teachers? Is it cheaper to use high-skilled labor without machine-intensive industry, or low-skilled with expensive machinery? There are many things that you cannot measure or compare, so they have to be under an established means of trade: currency, which is a symbol of combining subjective value with physical costs, what people are willing to trade for it and the costs of production.
#13837280
Should you use expensive ore A that lasts a long time, or cheap ore B that requires washing with soap 1 and delays production by 2?


How exactly do capitalists decide this and how does it differ from how socialists might decide it?
#13837292
Beren wrote:Well, it collapsed all around the world in 1929


It didnt collapse, it experienced a market correction created by central banks printing tons of money out of thin air, if these socialist central banks hadnt done this there would have been no 1929 crash and if the idiot politicians hadnt intervened into this correction there would have been no great depression either.
#13837337
daft punk wrote:How exactly do capitalists decide this and how does it differ from how socialists might decide it?


With our brains.

The problem with socialism is collective consciousness doesn't exist. People lie, cheat, steal, play dumb, act dumb, are naive, etc.

In socialism, the fact-value dichotomy is forgotten, so nothing would ever happen unless there's someone strong around to beat people up to make them.

grow up and wake up


No, you. Any institution which mandates membership is effectively socialist (whether national or democratic).
#13837385
How exactly do capitalists decide this and how does it differ from how socialists might decide it?

Capitalists simply decide which is cheaper, or, barring that, whether the return on the investment is worth a higher expenditure. Not only that, but everyone makes this decision, by producing an amount somewhat equivalent to what they produce and having discouragements to exceed that. You even decide if you want to purchase an object at store A or consider spending gas money to travel to store B which has a cheaper version. It's a simple matter of knowing prices and seeing if you come out ahead in relation to other decisions.

Socialists can guesstimate, and that's it. They can't account for the effects of demand, how much free resources are available for production in proportion to consumption or whether adjusting that is desirable, they can't clearly account for shipment as a cost when energy prices are based on the demand from people correctly preferring to use it and its supply, they can't really say whether its better for a scientist to become a teacher, and so much more. This does not mean that socialism will collapse because of this; it's the principle that utility is wasted in socialism and, so, it'll remain inefficient.
Factor the considerations of whether socialism would be a dictatorship or pure democracy. The dictator would have to prioritize and guess based on his inclinations, removing freedom of choice and likely leaving people with what they don't want, as well as in conditions of spiritual imprisonment in one's own nation. Now, if it's a democracy, how would those people choose what they want?

From an excessive point of consideration, they could vote on whatever the hell they want, and computers and statistics would implement triage based on need values (consistent power supply, toothpaste...) so that expensive things like houses would be put on hold until previous orders are filled. Of course, it would be impossible to tell who deserves more, implying that equality would have to be established here, and it would be hard to believe that people --even with a wealth increase-- would be deliberate proponents of saving, so we have problems of service, presumed aspects of quality (less 3D TVs, for example), and no way to encourage growth to increase wealth.

Finally, we can consider a democracy that is not so extreme: people are paid in something equivalent to dollars, representing their contribution, and a portion of that money would go to a planning committee for growth. People could even store some of it for the planners to get more earnings later. This would have democracy, an assessment for individual calculation and its impact on a macro scale (if everyone buys more than they produce, then there is little growth. This is just problems like that), and a form of increasing growth in relation to individual desire.
However, it lacks a method of defining the value of labor in different job types: Because there is no monetary benefit for a coordinator to see if the job market for janitors is weak while maintenance men is high, he would have to make a request of this employee just like one would in a management game like ___ Tycoon and I guess Sim City. He could just make the request based on the level of cleanliness in certain areas, but, instead of simply popping down a desired worker from nowhere, he would have to find someone from among the 100% employed and try some method of persuasion to get that worker to do something for him. This man cannot actually provide better money, not without going to the planning committee and pleading to be able to raise "wages" in his business, because that would be capitalism; he would be controlling the people's resources. Nonetheless, wages would remain the same and a janitor from another business could be transferred.
There's also the question of over-employment. A clean business is good, but how much would normally be financially undesirable?
There's likely more, and I wonder if I have exaggerated certain portions of the socialist system that I am thinking of--or whether I should have noted others.
#13837395
Conscript wrote:If you want to be arbitrary and start inventing definitions. At least some others just stick to the 'government = socialism' line.


How do you think government works other than emotional might makes right mob justice?
#13837399
Considering that for the majority of history the state has been controlled by a very small subset of society, in what sense can you claim the state operates on mob justice? They do toss us a bone every once in awhile to keep us sedated but that's not even vaguely mob justice. 4
#13837406
Mob justice doesn't have to be democratic. It only has to emphasize civil unrest and dissent. Those citizens who defy orderly rule are cast out as strangers. Similarly, those rulers which are so oppressive of the populace are made examples of.

For example, say you and a bunch of friends are stuck under the boot of a dictator.

Now say that one of those friends wants to stand up and resist.

Are you really going to let him jeopardize the whole group?

On the other hand, say there's a noble rival of the dictator who has a convincing amount of power to dethrone the dictator.

Would you not back that rival?

Socialism works the same way. It doesn't matter if de jure power is consolidated or not. The only thing that matters is if the people are militant enough to disapprove of what certain people want to do whether they're members of the establishment, bourgeoisie, populace, or proletariat.
#13837420
Daktoria wrote:Mob justice doesn't have to be democratic.

I didn't say it did. But it does need to be led by a mob and hardly any states throughout history have been led by mobs.

Daktoria wrote:It only has to emphasize civil unrest and dissent.

Manipulation of the masses is not mob rule.

Daktoria wrote:Those citizens who defy orderly rule are cast out as strangers.

No they aren't. I'm not cast out as a communist and I live in fucking Oklahoma. Being outcast is a matter of social ineptitude.

Daktoria wrote:Similarly, those rulers which are so oppressive of the populace are made examples of.

Haha

Daktoria wrote:Now say that one of those friends wants to stand up and resist.Are you really going to let him jeopardize the whole group?

Yeah I'd stand up with him and bitch at the pussy friends too weak to stand up for themselves.

Daktoria wrote:On the other hand, say there's a noble rival of the dictator who has a convincing amount of power to dethrone the dictator. Would you not back that rival?

No? Nobility is something I'm opposed to. The only way to change things is to change which class is in control because that's how the state works. The class on top does the oppressing the class below eats shit.

Daktoria wrote:Socialism works the same way.

lol no it doesn't. You're just being ridiculous now.

Daktoria wrote:The only thing that matters is if the people are militant enough to disapprove of what certain people want to do whether they're members of the establishment, bourgeoisie, populace, or proletariat.

There are only two groups because political and productive power are monopolized by one class. But libertarians reject the primacy of class so it's not surprising you'd completely ignore this.
#13837423
Daktoria wrote:How do you think government works other than emotional might makes right mob justice?


What does this have to do with socialism?

To answer your question, I think it works in the interests of the nation's constituents, the property-owning ruling class. It is coercive, as you described, but that doesn't make it socialist. Kropotkin would be turning in his grave right now. A national government protecting its national bourgeoisie is probably the most capitalist thing it could ever do.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 10

There were no Jews, no Israelites on earth UNTIL […]

Ukraine's national debt has about doubled since th[…]

Turkey should accept them, they have money and ar[…]

Poland : " I'm sorry to say - we, Western wor[…]